Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CloverETL

: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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

=[[CloverETL]]=

:{{la|CloverETL}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CloverETL Stats])

:({{Find sources|CloverETL}})

This software seems to be not notable. Though I found some mentions in reliable sources, they are all either trivial or short dictionary entries. PROD contested. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the original nomination, referenced sources appear to be trivial, old and are not enough for WP:NSOFT -- LoudHoward (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete Present independent sources are bare mentions in the context of general ETL software; they lack in-depth coverage of the subject. Others are either not clearly independent or not really reliable. A google search for news reports only yielded press releases. Coverage in books is limited to [http://books.google.com/books?id=Drm3T_32Bj0C&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=%22CloverETL%22&source=bl&ots=Gnn9TCBm4j&sig=d0suXO0p3qku82ZaSOT1QpNuLoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0aUsULqTM-iMyAHOg4CQBg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22CloverETL%22&f=false brief notes in conference proceedings] or [http://books.google.com/books?id=gsOinwaSsvgC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=%22CloverETL%22&source=bl&ots=1Mtrrw1CUB&sig=4I_iF6q_YOlXx_9IXiBaTCpkqUk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0aUsULqTM-iMyAHOg4CQBg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22CloverETL%22&f=false as a listing] among several other open-source projects. (I should also note that, contrary to the above editor comments, it really doesn't matter how old a source is. Its content and the provider are the important factors.) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

: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.