Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brakeman (programming tool)

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. Happy to userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brakeman (programming tool) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable product. As of this nomination, the sources given don't fulfill WP:N: the product's website, one presentation that was given at a conference, and two cursory events. There are no actual articles that fulfill the notability criteria, and I've not been able to find any that do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:NORUSH View One. ...creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. Couldn't find any independent, reliable sources. The sources provided are self-published. Pmresource (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Brakeman is currently only existing SCA tool that works on Ruby language and is mature, working tool. It was presented on a number of conferences, including OWASP, LA Ruby etc. It's a mature, free tool that is well recognized in Ruby programmers environment. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that there are now two more independent references and total number of references is now six. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You added links to two blogs. Blogs aren't reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are wrong. Wikipedia:Notability (web) does not prohibit blogs but merely trivial sources, and specifically personal blogs. None of these sites are personal blogs. First one (Fortify) is a corporate blog, respected in security industry. Second one is not a blog but a security news website. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Notability (web) does not apply to this AFD as the brakeman programming tool is not a web site. I'm assuming your are referring to this port, and this post as the two reliable sources. I will note that the first one is copyright Paweł Krawczyk and is in fact a blog. There is no indication of editorial oversight for this site that would indicate that would qualify it a reliable source for notability purposes. The fortify blog also lacks indication of editorial oversight for this site that would indicate that would qualify it a reliable source for notability purposes. - Whpq (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maybe userify. The sources are brief/weak/trivial. Doesn't establish notability. Could be worth keeping if better sources found. Could do with a re-write for a more general audience but that's an editing issue.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2011 (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.