The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stoq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Google searches reveal nothing. Appears to have been created by one of the developers. noq (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• a reference to a research paper was added that has been peer reviewed under the PIPE project for FAPESP, that should meet the guide lines for WP:notability. Johan Dahlin (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I added another reference to a journal (available for reviewing here) writing about the software, which should make the case stronger. Johan Dahlin (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The references prove the local notability (in San Paolo, Brazil, which is the scope of publisher's activities), which is just not enough for keeping it. Note: noq, what did you mean by "Appears to have been created by one of the developers"? Each software is created by one of its developers... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the article appears to have been created by the software developer. noq (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the subject appears to have received a fair amount of news coverage. It might be enough to establish the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing much coverage of the open source source software. The link above listed 1220 hits but at first glance most of them are not related to the software. The top hits appear to be some abbreviation for a theology related subject. noq (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.