Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllegroGraph: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:13, 1 April 2010

Latest revision as of 07:08, 5 February 2023

(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. [[User:Shimeru|Shimeru]] ([[User talk:Shimeru|talk]]) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

===[[AllegroGraph]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}

:{{la|AllegroGraph}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllegroGraph|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 1#{{anchorencode:AllegroGraph}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllegroGraph}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|AllegroGraph}})

Notability cannot be confirmed, either by the references provided (see the [[Talk:AllegroGraph|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?) <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;"> -&nbsp;<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;_{[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony#top|talk]]}</fontspan></span> 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)</small>

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.

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

*'''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. --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] ([[User talk:Bejnar|talk]]) 06:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

*'''Weak Keep''' seems notable enough. Cnorvell, please keep in mind that [[WP:OTHER|other stuffs exist]]. Perhaps those articles need deletion or improvement? --[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User talk:Nuujinn|talk]]) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>