Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Forge CodeProfiler

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Forge CodeProfiler

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

The software hasn't become notable since this article was last deleted in 2008. There are currently five 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. Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? Vfeditor (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first criterion of our 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. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VFeditor: I have addedd a reference to an analyist report and multiple customer statements, pls check whether this qualifies as a reliable source. --Vfeditor (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Ruud 09:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify What about the report written by Analysts KuppingerCole? It's focussed on CodeProfiler. Vfeditor (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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". —Ruud 14:02, 1 July 2013 (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.