Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axivion Bauhaus Suite

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 keep. Article moved to new name and refocused to more notable topic. Article expanded appreciably since nomination. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axivion Bauhaus Suite

As discussed below, this article has been moved to Bauhaus Project (computing). This move has been approved by the nominator. The goal is to establish notability for the new article, which will include a brief mention of the Axivion Bauhaus Suite.

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

~~No assertion of notability, no reliable sources. Flagged for refs for over a year.~~ With the name change to a broader topic and the sources provided, I withdraw the nomination. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. This is a static code analysis tool for C, C++, C#, Java and Ada code. It comprises various analyses such as architecture checking, interface analysis, and clone detection. This product makes no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another ~~deletionist~~ nomination without any apparent effort to search GScholar. If you try, you get [1] for starters. ~~Hey deletionists! Follow~~ Please follow the WP rules. Try to fix the article before you call to delete it. "Deletion is a last resort." — Revised by HowardBGolden (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC) (with apology below)[reply]

The "deltionists" moniker is WP:UNCIVIL. I did a search and cannot find enough data to support notability. The link above is a single instance of a paper that appears to be by the authors of the software. This of course isn't a way to establish notability. Since I was unable to find good sources, I tagged it. If however you can find good sources that would be great, please do so. Note that in over a year since the request was made no one added a single source. This isn't an issue of not following proper wikipedia process, 1 year is plenty of time. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a research project at the University of Stuttgart. It was then spun-off as a company. This is another one of the research/tool software products ~~that seem to mystify the deletionists~~. I'll add more cites within next 24 hours. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — Revised by HowardBGolden (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - I look forward to it. When proper sources to establish notability are in place I'll happily withdraw the nom. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you may be understandably flustered, please keep this civil and don't attack another personally. Your arguments may well be valid, but may be weakened in the eyes of a closing administrator because of the presentation. I advise any insulted parties not to disparage further. In the end, assume good faith in wanting to improve Wikipedia despite disagreements. Plus, we can't say they didn't look; they may well have, but only in the wrong direction. —CodeHydro 15:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice! To all: Please excuse the inflammatory remarks I made above. The frustration is real, but it isn't directed at anyone personally. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new-found scholarly reference seems to be from a conference proceeding, so it's not necessarily fully peer-reviewed, but otoh it should be reliable enough, esp. given that computer science does not place as much emphasis on review as other fields do. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the scholarly reference is by one of the creators of the software, so can't really be used to establish notabililty. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in computer science writes an introductory paper of someone else's software for a conference proceeding. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. But it doesn't mean that merely having a paper makes a particular product notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Keep/Move I suggest moving this to "Bauhaus Project (computing)" since the Bauhaus Project is the real topic. Axivion is a participant in the project and they provide commercial support for the project's tools, but they aren't the main topic. For a non-creator description of Bauhaus, see Aaron Quigley's PhD dissertation, pages 155-158, [2]. (Note: Koschke is a key investigator on Bauhaus, so references to him are also references to Bauhaus.) I will find more independent citations, but many are behind a paywall. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move I think the move and expansion to the larger Bauhaus Project is the right idea. It seems much easier to establish notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Howard seems to be volunteering to improve sourcing, I'm happy for it to be moved per his suggestion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to Bauhaus Project (computing) as supported by the nominator. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) (signature added later)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term "Bauhaus project" is a fairly common name that is used for many different projects, therefore finding sources using Google is not trivial. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything that appeared to discuss this particular Bauhaus project. No one else above has provided sources which satisfy WP:GNG. Until multiple reliable, secondary sources are provided which discuss the subject non-trivially, then I !vote to delete. SnottyWong ^speak 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your posting above says more about the poor quality of your research skills or your impatience than it does about the subject of the AfD. Please make useful contributions to the discussion, not ill-founded conclusions. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard... Snotty is a respectable researcher and as he said above, he did only a quick search. Plus, Bauhaus is a rather complicated case due to the fact that most useful sources are in German and that it is overshadowed by the more famous Bauhaus school. —CodeHydro 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should re-review the article itself if you haven't looked at it for the few hours - there've been many changes. Regards. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Greatly expanded article and added tons of third-party sources in the process, though not all are in English. There's even one source that says flat out "... the visualisation tool presented here comes most notably in the form of the Bauhaus tool kit..." [3] (note: no free versions of the article exist). —CodeHydro 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable thank to the good work of the editors above. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the nominator withdrew the nomination, there are still some who say delete, so the AFD continues. Good work for those who managed to keep searching and find some sources. Dream Focus 14:25, 21 September 2010 (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.