Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEOS (software library)

GEOS (software library)

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

Prodded; deprodded with lengthy assertion of notability on the talk page but no actual evidence. So the reason for deleting I gave in the prod still stands:

Not notable: No reliable sources or indication why its notable. Certainly no presumption of notability as free software libraries very rarely are. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable: Anonymous has written long description of notability of lib. on Talk:GEOS_(software_library), which I hereby include by reference. S/He probably didn't understand about the difference of this deletion talk page and that talk page. Lib is used in other projects. GangofOne (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was created as the PROD was removed, which is a normal way to respond to a PROD. But it has nothing to support an assertion of notability. The 'references' are almost all links to Wikipedia which cannot be used as a source, except for a link to Google's documentation and to the company's web site, neither of which is a reliable secondary source. Checking 'what links here' almost none of the linked articles link to this one, which suggests that GEOS is not a significant component of them. I don't doubt it is used, perhaps even widely used, but it needs reliable sources saying so, and covering it in some depth.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uhh - these comments are filled with apparently "wikipedia legalese" which I do not know.. however, I gather that the reviewer wants references from outside of WIkipedia.. I can supply those.. I (apparently mistakenly) thought that links to already-substantiated articles would mean something.. ok.. btw- the total number of desktop software users, for whom this library is .. how shall we say .. the definition of all geometry handling .. is greater than 100,000 users each month.. maybe not a big number for a twitter account, but a very very big number for serious science computation applications.. -- BrianMHamlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.111.87 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]