Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeological Recording Kit

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. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Recording Kit[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Interesting and useful software, to be sure --- apparently a database tailored to cataloguing archaeological sites. But if it rated an article, for a project of this nature, I'd expect Google Scholar not to draw a blank on it. (Spelling "Archeological" also fails; I tried.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not hard to find 3rd party sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These mentions indeed tend to be more "notices" than "in-depth reviews", but it still seems like plenty for well-used software. LotLE×talk 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per LotLE’s refs. Samboy (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (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) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources all show that the software is used by various firms, but they are trivial mentions that do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. And one of those sources is a page at The Free Dictionary, which I do not believe constitutes a reliable source. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2010 (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.