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 ( WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Accord.NET

Accord.NET (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I have no doubts this is an important tool. But the level of its importance is not at all clear from the article. The sources cited are from software/developers itself and a handful primary sources that say that they were using this tool. Despite the fact it was tagged since 2017, no independent references have been added which discuss the subject in depth. Sample Dubious pieces:

"Multiple scientific publications have been published with the use of the framework.[5][6][7][8][9][10]" - nothing but refbombing. What I see it used in 6 publications, so what?

" featured in multiple books such as Mastering.NET Machine Learning by PACKT publishing and F# for Machine Learning Applications, " - I only see it is featured in 2 books, and may well be that the corresponding parts are written by the software authors or associates; happens all the time. And notewothiness of these books themselves is unclear Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I'd keep it as I see them in 187 academic papers/articles: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Accord.NET%22. I see their search traffic is about 10% of of scikit-learn: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=accord.net,scikit-learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:F:0:0:0:332 ( talk) 18:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Which of them discuss it in reasonable detail? There are 8,000 google hits for " wrench 10mm", but no wikipedia article, and none expected. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Mentioned in numerous academic papers, clearly notable. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

  "Mentioned" is not among our criteria of notability. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:31, 30 May 2018 (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.