Deletion of CloverETL

Comment: I agree with the original nomination, referenced sources appear to be trivial, old and are not enough for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT)

Comment: Present |independent sources are bare mentions in the context of general ETL software; they lack |in-depth coverage of the subject.  Others are either not clearly independent or not really reliable.  A google search for news reports only yielded press releases.  Coverage in books is limited to http://books.google.com/books?id=Drm3T_32Bj0C&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=%22CloverETL%22&source=bl&ots=Gnn9TCBm4j&sig=d0suXO0p3qku82ZaSOT1QpNuLoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0aUsULqTM-iMyAHOg4CQBg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22CloverETL%22&f=false brief notes in conference proceedings or http://books.google.com/books?id=gsOinwaSsvgC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=%22CloverETL%22&source=bl&ots=1Mtrrw1CUB&sig=4I_iF6q_YOlXx_9IXiBaTCpkqUk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0aUsULqTM-iMyAHOg4CQBg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22CloverETL%22&f=false as a listing among several other open-source projects.  (I should also note that, contrary to the above editor comments, it really doesn't matter how old a source is.  Its content and the provider are the important factors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:INDEPTH)