Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dot15926

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. joe decker^talk 22:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dot15926 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability for this ontology editor, whose development apparently ended in 2015. The references given were all (I think) written by the author of the software, and a Google search (on both "dot15926" and ".15926") doesn't find anything else substantial about this software. Yaron K. (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What are the notability criteria used? The article is augmented with the references to the use in the project of the leading industry consortium developing the ontology standards for the process industry. The repository for the software code is alive and periodically cloned, the software is supported by the authors. Vic5784 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the General notability guideline, a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't see any evidence so far of independent coverage. Yaron K. (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two references to unaffiliated entities were included on the page. One leads to FIATECH consortium report and another to the Aucotec software company. Both are using the software in question, referencing it in their publications. Vic5784 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches do not show any indication of notability, my search results were the same as ][u|Yaron K.]]'s, nothing found. Fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches have simply found nothing better at all, the article is nothing at all suggestive of better. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 10 June 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.