Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllegroGraph

AllegroGraph

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

Notability cannot be confirmed, either by the references provided (see the talk page), or by other searches for significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I will gladly withdraw if these sources can be found. (Maybe I'm missing something?) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying to understand why three solid references are removed that show validity of the subject.

Article #1 is about work in the Intelligence community (don't we want to know about what the DOD is doing?). Articles out of the intelligence community are few and far between. Please see the last sentence in the Abstract. Can it be more clear?

"Our contributions are built to work with AllegroGraph, from Franz Inc." 1. http://c4i.gmu.edu/OIC09/papers/OIC2009_4_SchragEtAll.pdf

The other two are in peer reviewed scientific journals. I don't understand how these CAN'T be considered relevant. In the field these are the best reference to have.

2. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICSC.2008.10 3. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICSC.2009.33

How does something like this product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo4j get to reference their OWN Blog. The blog reference used for addition support I provide is from an recognized expert in the field???? www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2009/04/getting-started-with-allegrogr.html

Please explain to me how something like this is better - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontotext

The article should have the above referenced articles added back and the pending deletion should be removed.

Cnorvell (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references listed in Google Scholar seem to indicate more secondary source recognition than for most software. The fact that some of it is quite depreciating, doesn't lessen its notability. After the Afd, assuming that it is kept, editors should try to avoid blog sources. Also they should strive to put at least the lead paragraph in plain English without jargon or acronyms. --Bejnar (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems notable enough. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]