Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Roslyn

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) 01:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Roslyn

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This overly technical article is not notable (as defined by Wikipedia) and uses only Microsoft-published resources as source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really now? Have you even used .NET? Do you know what it is? Roslyn is a milestone development in the .NET framework, and is at the core of Microsoft's next iteration of the .NET Framework and Visual Studio 2012 development. Noldorin (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please no personal attacks. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at least a few third-party reliable source material seems to exist. [1] [2]. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That's quite true. I thought it still does not fit the bill for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" especially since Mary Jo Foley usually gets more and more closer to rehashing a dependent source. But let's see what comes out of this discussion. Not all the AfDs end in deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to ZDNet and InfoWorld, also coverage in Visual Studio Magazine[3][4] (an independent publication), The Register [5][6], and Developer.com[7] (part of QuinStreet). Seems to be also coverage in Windows PowerShell for Developers (O'Reilly)[8][9]. Being "overly technical" isn't grounds for deletion because it can be fixed by editing (read WP:AfD). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:17, 24 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in Visual Studio Magazine and The Register listed above. The topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep as it's notable. MountWassen (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 4 October 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.