Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C-Tools 2.0 (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Sandstein 06:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C-Tools 2.0

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

Fixing broken nomination on behalf of Karl.brown (talk · contribs). Apparently Twinkle barfed because the first AfD page (a VfD in 2005) was moved to the article talk page. I'm not sure if this is how it was done back then, but that's another issue. I think the nomination rationale has to do with WP:N but I will ask Karl to re-enter his full rationale. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rationale this software is now dead; very few references can be found, only a few blog posts and routine reviews of the software. If the software was still around and if a major publication had written about it I would say it should be kept, but given it's dead and it seems to have been forgotten, I don't see why wikipedia should keep it. it was proposed for deletion a while ago, as you can see even back then its notability was debatable. --KarlB (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 28 April 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) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is ~~permanent~~ WP:NOTTEMPORARY. That a software product is moribund or no longer on the market is not in itself a consideration. It's how much notability it had while it was available. The URL in this book [1] suggests that the American Cancer Society had featured it in one of their online publications. (Attempts to retrieve at archive.org yielded this[2], which links to quite a lot of ACS content related to this product.) I'm not sure if this is significant coverage, but it looks like it's in RS anyway. Yakushima (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've added a number of references, all fished from Wayback Machine, from which several of the ^{[citation needed]}-tagged statements might be substantiated. I reserve judgement on notability, however. Yakushima (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After a little more work, I have a tentative verdict: the call for beta testers from two sources (infoSync World and Gizmodo), together with the TreoCentral review, could get this article over the WP:GNG bar of "significant coverage" in independent, reliable sources. There are other mentions (not "significant") in other independent sources (an oncology journal and a book). Then there's the provenance of the software itself: the American Cancer Society. Is it WP:ADVERTISING if it's for a free product, pro bono, that has undergone peer review by physicians volunteers, a product that's no longer available anyway? Is ACS "unreliable"? Sure, they'll be biased, since they organized the whole project, but it appears they did drink their own koolaid, at least, and so did many others. Yakushima (talk) 04:47, 9 May 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, Sandstein 06:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm still voting for delete; it may meet the standard for notability, but only barely, most mentions are rather trivial, routine sort of coverage for a new software package; nothing much about how much impact this had. If kept, I would also suggest moving to 'C-Tools' (since 2.0 is just a version, and the most recent version was actually 2.5). --KarlB (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A call for beta testers is not an indication that this product ever saw the light of day. If no references can be found, it should be deleted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per KarlB. References prove its existence, not notability (i.e. effect or legacy on cancer treatment or PDA software). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:17, 22 May 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.