- 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AxsJAX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A nonnotable software piece with no secondary sources given. - Altenmann >t 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Under the scholar link, there are some papers which discuss the library in detail, and mention its use in other projects. These papers are serious academic papers, but this appears to be a relatively little-known tool in a highly specialized area, so my keep is weak. RayTalk 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (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.