Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuronDotNet

NeuronDotNet

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY/WP:NSOFTWARE/etc. was deprodded by creator User:Ajgorhoe who added several references, whose quality was subsequently criticized by User:Staszek Lem, who removed them (see Talk:NeuronDotNet). I agree that the references don't discuss the topic in depth, and are not enough to show notability, so the next step is a wider discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be at least somewhat visible — Google scholar found 59 academic works that cite it — but among them I didn't find any with the nontrivial and independent coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a huge number of useful tools which are free and used in the academia to some extent. I can name a dozen of graph matching programs or polygon triangulation packages off my head. They are given credit in scholarly papers which used them. But nobody makes big fuss about them just because they are free and used. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see relevance of NeuronDotNet as one of early generally accessible libraries for ANN modelling, especially in the .NET realm. It is notable for its emphasis on modularity, which adds flexibility in combining different architectures and training algorithms. This may be the reason that it found application in engineering, research and derived software. A number of references that I have hastily included in [this version] (and were righteously, at least what concerns the way they were added, criticized by User:Staszek Lem), indicate use in rather different applications and for different purposes, which somehow supports the claims related to modularity. Some secondary sources do cover the subject, though maybe not to large extent. I would say this situation is inherent in software libraries, where more popular attention is usually given to the more visible part, i.e. applications. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not enough be in encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]