Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeCharge Studio

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CodeCharge Studio

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

As a notability tag was removed by someone involved with this software's development, I am bringing this directly to AfD. Software with no indication of notability. GNews returns truckloads of press releases but little else, GBooks returns trivial mentions, and GScholar more trivial mentions. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with Blanchardb's opinion of the GScholar mentions as "trivial." My GScholar search shows that the CodeCharge Studio tool was used for developing projects which led to the scholarly articles by independent researchers. See [1] and [2]. There are other references to IEEE journals which I don't have open access to at home. See [3]. I will look at these at work. — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC). Update: I looked at the IEEE article at work. It includes a discussion of four web development tools (including CodeCharge Studio) and their features. The pros and cons of each tool are discussed thoroughly, and the authors give suggestions for improvement in future tools. (This isn't just a brief tabulation of features.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, that the there is nothing that demonstrates significant coverage by independent and reliable sources, I am afraid that HowardBGolden has it wrong those mentions and quotes are not realy significant enough to pass the WP:GNG test. Codf1977 (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I claim that the sources are both independent and reliable. Do you disagree? If so, please explain. If the mentions and quotes aren't significant according to your understanding of WP:GNG, please explain what they lack. Have you looked at the IEEE article? If not, what is insufficient about my description of it? — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable sources which establish notability. The one source in the article is a link to release notes for the software. The two sources provided above are: (1) a research paper which mentions CodeCharge Studio exactly once (which only proves existence, not notability), and (2) a report on a college student's internship at Fermilab (clearly not a reliable source). I can't comment on the IEEE source, as it is behind a paywall. However, even if the IEEE source is a reliable source which establishes the notability of CodeCharge Studio, then that is only one source. WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Claiming notability for this software appears to be a stretch. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't any of the news or book results notable? Dream Focus 04:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It really isn't hard to find third party reviews of this software. The company's website provides links to over a dozen third-party reviews here from sources like InfoWorld [4], PHP Architect [5], and Intranet Journal [6]. The article just needs some love is all. —CodeHydro 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 7 third party sources. The article still needs some clean up, but the mess is not bad enough to be worth deleting. —CodeHydro 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added even more sources, slightly expanded, and did some reorganization and cleanup. Anybody whose vote above was to delete really ought to reconsider based on the latest version, which have plenty of sources that clearly satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion despite the need for more cleanup. —CodeHydro 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs to be partially rewritten to comply with NPOV, however overall the article looks fine. The subject is notable based on the sources provided. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree the article needs to be partially rewritten to comply with NPOV, but the topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:51, 25 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.

Keep - Source used for prior delete request was incomplete. It cited dissolution in 2003, and no further activity at the secretary of state. Added Secretary of state reference indicating Yes Software INC, a Nevada Corp is current as of the end of 2017. All filings have been made biannually.