Deletion of Fastflow (computing)

Comment: I would ask those involved here to consider a couple of issues. One is the wikipedia policy on |conflict of interest. If you are involved in the software project, you should probably not be editing the article, and if you do, you should be very careful to maintain a |neutral point of view. The other issue is wikipedia policy on |sock puppetry. There is an appearance of socking here, and folks will be looking into this. If you are in violation of these policies, it would be a good idea to admit it now. Aside from the impact engaging in such behavior might have on wikipedia, it could also have unintended effects in the real world as these conversations are available to anyone with an interest
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:SOCK)

Comment: per HowardBGolden's findings at the top of this discussion.  Journal articles and other scientific publications are reliable sources, even if they're all by the same people; this isn't an issue of self-published sources or |improperly citing oneself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COS)

Comment: I've taken my fourth jaunt through google scholar and news, my local uni library, and I'm just not seeing anything that I believe meets the bar for general notability--all of the sources that meet the criterion of significant coverage are authored by a major contributor to the both the article here and the software itself, and my reading of  leads me to the conclusion that such sources should not be considered reliable. Many arguments have been presented for a keep, but thus far, few have a grounding in WP policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP)