Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThreadSanitizer

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 delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThreadSanitizer

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

A very specialised piece of software with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--yutsi (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The page about ThreadSanitizer is my first article on wikipedia and I might be misunderstanding wikipedia's rules. Are you suggesting to delete the article because the subject is not worth it? Or because there is no proof that it's wort it? Or because the article itself is bad? How much time do I have to address the concerns? (Last time the article was deleted 5 minutes after it was marked for deletion). I admit that the article is not yet complete, but I don't really understand why it has to be deleted and what do I need to do to avoid it. Thanks! Ksserebr (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Ksserebr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as not notable. Ksserebr, it's "Wikipedia:Notability" you should read to get an understanding of the objections. "Worth it" isn't really terminology we use. --Griseum (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a very useful tool in its particular "niche", but it just isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Here are the links where the subject of this article is mentioned. I have to admit that some of these links are not 100% "Independent of the subject", since I know (at least virtually) most of the users of the tool.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If this does not satisfy 'notability', please go forward and delete the article since I won't be able to bring more proofs. Ksserebr (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valgrind#Tools, where it's already mentioned. The first link above is valgrind's site, and mentions this as a patch/variant. Not worthy of a full Wikipedia article right now, but it deserves a mention in that article. Pcap ping 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to http://www.mcst.ru/news.shtml#100129 (google transled page: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcst.ru%2Fnews.shtml&sl=ru&tl=en ) there was a seminar about the subject held by MCST. Some info about MCST could be found there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_%28computer%29 77.35.27.153 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If the seminar was held by MCST and MCST is the only one reporting that as "news" it's not adding notability. --Griseum (talk) 06:15, 26 February 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.