Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CERF (software)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CERF (software)

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

Non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG: the product has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Further, merging the content into the company that developed it (Rescentris) does not appear appropriate, since the company itself does not even seem to be notable (WP:PRODUCT). The deepest independent coverage I could find for the product is on page 96 of this paper, but that short review, to me, is insufficient to establish notability. Edcolins (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional external source for CERF as a scientific data management tool (scientists against malaria and NAABB) and added some peer review journal articles that use CERF in discussions of the value of semantic technologies to scientific data curation. Invasifspecies (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated broken links and added additional external source Invasifspecies (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It's mentioned in a few sources, but the it's brief - the extensive coverage isn't there. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is notable and has Valid resources (Toomass (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Could you please elaborate? Which "valid resources" do you mean? To me, the coverage is really thin, i.e. not significant. --Edcolins (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - research on this is difficult because the acronym is also the last name of an internet pioneer Vint Cerf. But I could find no substantial coverage of this software which would indicate it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of references in the article, but most of them look like they're unlikely to meet our WP:RS requirements. I spot-checked a half dozen which looked like they might be reasonable, but they all turned out to be either first-party, passing mentions, or unable to satisfy WP:RS for one reason or another. It would be useful if somebody would pick the two or three best references and list them here for more detailed review, but lacking that, I don't see this passing the bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (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.