Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluentd

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 duffbeerforme (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fluentd[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable solution bombarded with interviews, primary sources, passing mentions and a non mention. Fluentd lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interim comment Wikipedia:Notability (software) has some good guidelines for assessing the notability of software products. I'm going to be checking the article and its sources against those guidelines in the next couple of days, but it doesn't look promising. Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, a search in books and academic papers indicates that this is sufficiently notable software, a fact completely obscured by the appalling referencing in the current article, and the promotional way in which it it is written. Examples:

This book (Packt, 2015))
This book (Apress, 2015)
This book (O'Reilly Media, 2014)
An article in this book (Springer, 2015}
Several articles on Google Scholar which have not been written by anyone associated with the software. Excluding any article authored by Matsumoto Yukihiro, Kiyoto Tamura, Hiro Yoshikawa, Kazuki Ota, Masahiro Nakagawa, or Sada Furuhashi, there are still at least 8. The snippets indicate that they are not simply passing mentions.

Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I've rewritten the article (it's now much shorter but proably more informative to the general reader) and used several of the sources I've listed above. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2016 (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.