Deletion of NodeXL

Comment: Most does not mean all, or all but one. I would be happy to eliminate citations that you think are inappropriate, but (see below) I argue that there are a number of citations that are not . I think the article structure does need work, but that should be a matter of editing, not deletion. This software has been downloaded over 30,000 times (as I have mentioned on the article discussion page) a number that is far from obscure for the network analysis community. This software has been continuously supported by funding and research efforts from a number of universities / research labs, as described in the article. This software has been described and used in multiple peer-reviewed publications and not just technical websites
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:QS)

Comment: Sources are too weak to pass .  Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (software
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I disagree that the sources are too weak to pass . The "NodeXL and research" section of the article includes citations to peer-reviewed publications, at least two of which are not by members of the team. I have also added a link to a World Bank Group blog post that a) addresses the subject in detail, b) is reliable, c) is a secondary source, d) is independent of the subject and thus fulfills  in my understanding
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: most of the citations appear , and/or non-significant coverage. Article structure also has the feel of grab-bag  rather than an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not meant to be an index for obscure software and any mention of it on technical websites
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:QS||WP:IINFO)