Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusionviewer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fusionviewer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this software is notable enough to maintain its own separate article about. PROD was declined and citations were added, but on inspection, they are not suitable to support a claim of notability.

The first source, "A new application for displaying and fusing multimodal data sets", shows Karl G. Baum as an author. Baum's company, KGB Technologies, is the creator of FusionViewer (see the note at the bottom of the first page of that article). Therefore, the article is not independent and cannot support a claim of notability.

The second article, '"FusionViewer: An open source display application for PET/CT medical images" opens with the words "we have developed an application..." then continues, "The application (FusionViewer)". Again, not an independent source, as it is a source written by people who worked on the project.

The third source, "Concepts for Efficient and Reliable Multi-modal Breast Image Reading", trivially mentions FusionViewer in one sentence, two pages in. Trivial mentions cannot support a claim of notability.

Only one other source of any substance was found, and again, it was by Baum, so not independent. All other sources located (and I checked Fusion Viewer, FusionViewer, and Fusion-Viewer to make sure I had all the possibilities) were trivial mentions of the "we used Fusion Viewer to look at some stuff" kind, which are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a niche market and so it may be difficult to find sources for the product. It does seems as though it may have some possible criteria in terms of an academic work, but I am unfamiliar with the criteria in that field. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of the page has the username "Fusionoss" and has only one edit - the creation of the page. That looks like a red flag in terms of COI to me. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any independent sources with significant coverage. As Willsome stated, this article and the user who created it are suspicious. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 15:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.