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

Revision as of 19:11, 7 June 2013

Revision as of 06:28, 8 June 2013

Line 5:

:{{la|Virtual Forge CodeProfiler}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Forge CodeProfiler|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 7#{{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)