- 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 keep. NW (Talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Polymake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly unoteable program. (No CSD for Programs) RandomTime 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsourced article makes no assertion of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. An article doesn't need to make an assertion of notability (that's for WP:CSD#A7, for which this isn't eligible): it needs to be on a notable subject. The subject of this article has been noted (so is notable) by about 60 scientific papers that cite the original polymake article. I think this should provide enough nontrivial reliable secondary sources about the subject to pass WP:GNG The article as it stands now is pretty miserable, but I think expansion is a better option than deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It seems to be notable in its scientific ___domain --Rirunmot 01:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unsourced, little material (easily merged if notable). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As David's search as well this search seems to indicate, the subject of the article is notable. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here's a more accurate book search that eliminates an unrelated program by the same name. There are still plenty of hits in the refined search. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks David. Paul August ☎ 22:17, 31 October 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.