Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NodeSystems

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NodeSystems

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

Non-notable software. No coverage in reliable sources found by Google using the Verbatim option (to avoid instances of "node systems" as two words). No indication of significance in the unreferenced article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps the author can work on it, but as-is I'm not seeing any notability. Bali88 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you must - It may not be considered notable now, but it is and it will be one day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgreenberg (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be - see WP:TOOSOON. Stalwart111 00:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - right now I can't find anything to suggest this would meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 00:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Software is actively developed and supported Jgreenberg (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Is industry notable because it is unique combination of terminal emulator with a shared central database / CMDB, further the central database is based on Graph_theory which makes it especially useful, queriable, open standard, and even academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgreenberg (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, I was unable to find any coverage, industry sources included. If you can identify some suitable citations it could make a difference. Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with evaluating the utility, quality, or value of things. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to the author is to stick it in your sandbox and continue to look for quality sources. It likely will be notable in the future and you can repost then. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2014 (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.