Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PragmaDev Process

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

Non-notable editor program; all sources are primary, independent uptake (let alone coverage) appears not to exist. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any indication of notability or coverage during my search. - Flori4nKT A L K 00:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pragmatically content could have been usefully added to PragmaDev Studio by creator Manu31415 who perhaps should be aware better references are needed for an article to stay in mainspace. Not really needing of a redirect/merge unless there's demonstratable need for the cats as should be adequately searchable. If something substantial found with an adequate WP:THREE not adverse to keeping.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is entirely based on two independent scientific papers that have been published following peer reviews: Automatic Verification of BPMN Models at ERTS2 Conference and Verification of BPMN models at CSD&M Conference. These two publications are reliable and independent sources that establish notability of the work. Even though the work was meant to rely to PragmaDev Studio at start, it turned out to be completely independent as explained in the papers. That is why this would not fit in the PragmaDev Studio page. --Manu31415 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two papers by the same team which is affiliated with PragmaDev (yes, it's all in the article header [1]). Nope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]