Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Application Repository for Shared-Memory Computers

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Application Repository for Shared-Memory Computers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Seems to be mostly advertising. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The conference paper describing this test suite in 2008 has been cited over 4K times. There are references to it in G-Scholar in 2021 and 2022. I would advise, though, to better identify the developers. The name in the infobox is clearly a key person, but the articles are written by a team and most likely no one person can be considered the developer. Lamona (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 05:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of evidence of notability in Google Scholar search. WP:PROMO issues can be addressed through normal editing. ~Kvng (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm basing my vote on the scholarly citations identified above. I found this one [[1]] which also shows other papers citing the developer's work. It does need some cleanup and is a bit WP:ESSAY in tone. I also marked a few dead links. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I might have heard of this, but it doesn't seem to have quite enough sourcing to meet the threshold of notability. SWinxy (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2022 (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.