Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppFuse

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AppFuse

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

I don't think AppFuse is notable software. At least the article can not show that. –ebraminio^talk 08:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep: the article contains Java.net article and article on DeveloperWorks, and there was a talk on O'Reilly's event. All of those are by Matt Raible (author of AppFuse), but they undergone editorial oversight. Particularly DW's article is convincing as it is long, deep in coverage and approved by IBM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. -- BenTels (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep there is some press (notably from The Register but the article is almost certainly too long. Would need some significant rewriting to be up to standards. MountainMan11 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2012 (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.