Deletion of Gramps

Comment: Sources found: an https://lwn.net/Articles/605409/ LWN.net review article, a https://www.proquest.com/docview/1806999288?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true conference proceedings that has a couple of paragraphs on the Gramps modeling language, a https://genealogy-software.no1reviews.com/gramps.html short Gramps review from a software review site, and a https://genealogytools.com/replacing-family-tree-maker-part-8-importing-your-ftm-tree-into-gramps-4/ review article for Gramps on genealogytools.com that is part 8 of a multi-part article comparing family tree software. The first and last sources look to be in enough depth and reliable enough IMO for marginal notability. The conference proceeding shows that the software has had some impact in the academic community. no1reviews.com looks independent and may or may not be reliable. The Eastman work mentioned above could be considered expert commentary, but reasonable people can disagree on that. Overall, I would recommend a marginal keep. If other editors find it below GNG threshold, then as an alternative to deletion per , I think there is enough reliable sourcing to support an entry in Comparison of genealogy software. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)