Deletion of Fastflow (computing)

Comment: HowardBGolden, I've worked in IT at a major uni since the early 1980s, although that's not really relevant here. If you look at the article, please note that most of the references cited came out before the software. Also, I have read some of the papers posted on the project's http://calvados.di.unipi.it/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=ffnamespace:about home page (I assume the homepage is where you got them, since it appears that you cut and pasted the list from there, have you read them?), some cover it in details, some in passing, but all are written by the authors of the software and if you RTFM, none of those can be considered |reliable since they are PDFs hosted on a self published website. The software may be notable, but we need good references to show that it is. Pomello, I see that you are apparently new around here, glad to have you on board. Download stats thankfully do not make a piece of software notable. See for example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1246708/Mussolini-iPhone-app-second-downloaded-item-Italy--1-000-day-59p.html this iphone app with more that a 1000 downloads a day (which, ironically is probably notable given the daily mail article). Basically, what we're looking for here is significant coverage in |reliable sources. Blogs generally speaking do not count, but Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses might, do you have the volume/issue/date for the article in question
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)