Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit (3rd nomination)

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 speedy withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

notability not established, see arguments of previous successful AfD Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2009-10 ✓ keep, 2006-01 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2009-11 Cppcheck ✗ delete

Logs: 2006-01 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article that led DGG to !vote keep in the last AfD, Baxter, I. D., Pidgeon, C., & Mehlich, M. (2004, May). DMS/spl reg: Program transformations for practical scalable software evolution. In Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 625-634). IEEE. has over 400 Google Scholar hits. This is a high-impact paper. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous successful AfD was 15 years ago, and not the most recent. It had no valid arguments in it whatsoever, so I don't know what the nominator was referring to above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compelling reasons to delete, my google search finds several references. Seems like a tool with significant usage, and multiple secondary sources. Jeepday (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2021 (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.