Deletion of GNU Enterprise (2nd nomination)

Comment: I found mentions http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/Customer-Relationship-Management-CRM-mit-Open-Source-221943.html on Heise.de and http://www.salon.com/2003/05/07/free_software_argentina/ Salon.com which may be enough to establish notability.  |Notability isn't temporary, but this project does indeed seem dead.  So, maybe it should simply be merged into the main GNU article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: People, the links above to find sources are there |for a reason. The topic meets , per the sources found by {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}} and because covered in a plethora of other sources. See short but meaningful mentions http://books.google.it/books?id=D6sGjfl5htkC&pg=PA123&dq=%22GNU+Enterprise%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=Vx11Utj3OqXb7Abfz4GACA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22GNU%20Enterprise%22&f=false here and http://books.google.it/books?id=76Q2Z3fcgJIC&pg=PA274&dq=%22GNU+Enterprise%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=QR11UqauJ-vY7Aa1-oCoAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22GNU%20Enterprise%22&f=false here, a http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=958164 whole academic paper on the GNU Enterprise development and http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-34456-X_76 another where included in a comparative analysis. Also let us remember that |notability is not temporary and that the current activity status of the software has nothing to do with its notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Per the sources found by {{u|Cyclopia}}.  Notability is not temporary, and AFD is not for article improvement.  If it's covered in , then it passes  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: to GNU.  There is every sign that this is a dead project that never delivered anything substantial.  The sources found by {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}} are both passing mentions, not enough to meet .  The ''Salon'' article, especially, only mentions in passing that some other piece of software it is discussing ''may'' one day form part of GNUe.  The sources found be {{u|Cyclopia}} are better but still mostly passing mentions.  Of the two substantial published papers, the Elliot and Scacchi paper is concerned with the culture of developers and is using GNUe as a case study.  It is not really telling us anything about GNUe itself, only verifying that there was active development in 2003.  The Erbizzoni ''et al.'' paper is behind a paywall and I would be very reluctant to accept for notability on the basis of what it says in the abstract (but would take on good faith comments from anyone who ''has'' read it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by .  Sources offered are all  and every one is a dead link.  Googling turned up nothing useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARY)