Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Forge CodeProfiler: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:20, 7 June 2013

Latest revision as of 09:07, 11 February 2023

(13 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 17:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

===[[Virtual Forge CodeProfiler]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}

<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codeprofiler]]</ul></div>

:{{la|Virtual Forge CodeProfiler}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Forge CodeProfiler|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 722#{{anchorencode:Virtual Forge CodeProfiler}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Forge_CodeProfiler Stats]</span>)

:({{Find sources|Virtual Forge CodeProfiler}})

The software hasn't become notable since this article was last deleted in 2008. There are currently 5five references, of which the first and fifth are primary sources, and the fourth is a blog post and therefore not reliable. The remaining two are passing mentions in two books, and therefore don't amount to significant coverage. (The entirety of what Chuprunov's second, 557-page book has to say about CodeProfiler specifically is the following: "In order to detect inconsistencies and differences to the target state in advance, tools for static code analysis, such as Virtual Forge CodeProfiler, can be integrated into the SAP Transport Management System (TMS) of SAP… This tool can also scan all ABAP code in the live system for a large variety of security and compliance violations…". The first book says even less: "In order to detect inconsistencies and differences to the target state in advance, tools for static code analysis, such as Virtual Forge CodeProfiler, can be integrated into the SAP correction and transport process." (my translation from the original German)) Contrary to the article's claims, neither book specifically "recommends" CodeProfiler; it's only given as an example of a static code analysis tool which can be used. [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 12:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

*VFeditor: I can't follow this argumentation. The Wikipedia rules are to prove that an article is notable by ideally providing a list of books that deal with the topic. We provided two books that mention the tool. To what extend does a book/link need to mention the tool so the tool becomes notable? [[User:Vfeditor|Vfeditor]] ([[User talk:Vfeditor|talk]]) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

**The first criterion of our [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] discusses what counts as "significant coverage". The guideline makes it very clear that a single sentence in a larger work, such as a book or newspaper article, doesn't count as significant coverage. (See in particular the footnoted example.) Neither of the two books you cite devotes more than two sentences to CodeProfiler, and even then it's only mentioned as an example. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 15:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. —[[User:Mikemoral|<span style="color: green">Mike</span>]][[User talk:Mikemoral|<span style="color: #21421E">moral</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mikemoral|<span style="color: #01796F">♪♫</span>]] 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. —[[User:Mikemoral|<span style="color: green">Mike</span>]][[User talk:Mikemoral|<span style="color: #21421E">moral</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mikemoral|<span style="color: #01796F">♪♫</span>]] 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)</small>

*VFeditor: I can'thave followaddedd this argumentation. The Wikipedia rulesa arereference to prove that an articleanalyist isreport notableand bymultiple ideallycustomer providingstatements, apls listcheck ofwhether booksthis thatqualifies dealas witha thereliable topicsource. We provided two books that mention the tool. To what extend does a book/link need to mention the tool so the tool becomes notable? --[[User:Vfeditor|Vfeditor]] ([[User talk:Vfeditor|talk]]) 1511:2049, 78 June 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />

:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />

:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>[[User:Czar|<span style="color:#B048B5;">''czar''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Czar|<span style="color:#888;">&middot;</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Czar|<span style="color:#888;">&middot;</span>]]</span> 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->

<hr style="width:55%;" />

<hr style="width:55%;" />

:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br />

:<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>[[User:Czar|<span style="color:#B048B5;">''czar''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Czar|<span style="color:#888;">&middot;</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Czar|<span style="color:#888;">&middot;</span>]]</span> 04:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->

<hr style="width:55%;" />

* '''Delete''' I could not find ant non-trivial mentions other than a single short mention as an example, without further discussion, in http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-35302-4_6. The article being written like an advertisement by an editor with a conflict-of-interest doesn't help either. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 09:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

* '''Clarify''' What about the report written by Analysts KuppingerCole? It's focussed on CodeProfiler. [[User:Vfeditor|Vfeditor]] ([[User talk:Vfeditor|talk]]) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

** These kinds of reports are often written at the request of (and paid for by) the vendor, so it wouldn't pass the "independent" part of the "non-trivial mentions in multiple independent reliable sources". —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>