Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keel (software) (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keel (software)

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

Delete There appears to be little independent coverage of this software. The article was proded and Afd'd shortly after its creation in 2010, with little participation and a "no consensus" result. There is no claim to notability. The essay at Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion does not suggest any basis for retention. Using KEEL software as a educational tool: A case of study teaching data mining (2011) by the software authors has been cited twice, both passing mentions. Several papers mention using Keel software but without further comment. The only independent discussion seems to occur from a group in Wrocław, Poland who have published Lasota et al. (2008) "An Attempt to Use the KEEL Tool to Evaluate Fuzzy Models for Real Estate Appraisal" and Graczyk et al. (2009) "Comparative analysis of premises valuation models using KEEL, RapidMiner, and WEKA". The software appears to have developed no other following, and fails the general notibility guideline. There is no claim of historical or technical significance and no evidence of that has been found. I note that the hits on GoogleScholar include many that result from authors who are named "Keel". --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldnt find any sources on this to say its notable. AlbinoFerret 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, having given due consideration to the previous discussion. Igor the bunny (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, If wanted this can be shoved on the Spanish 'pedia since no gives a toss about notability over there!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability to pass GNG. -- Calidum 05:52, 31 December 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.