Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cbehave


 * 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   redirect to Behavior-driven development. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Cbehave

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No evidence that this software is notable. It was previously undeleted as a contest PROD. Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete per WP:GNG. It's a shame, I didn't know this existed. But there just aren't any sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. That's hardly surprising for the zero-point-something release of anything.  Personally, I don't see what this thing does that can't be done with asserts -- and that's after downloading it and looking at it.  It's only about 1000 lines of C, 70% of that in two headers and there's just nothing there.  People have been writing simple wrappers like this for decades, often as student exercises.  I also discovered that it was written by "Tony Bai " who's pretty obviously the same  who created this article and has objected to its WP:PRODing.  Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION and not for things you made up. Msnicki (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge: To Behavior-driven development, as an example. BDD is a valid testing and development strategy within the Agile community, but we don't need an article on every framework. -- BenTels (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Behavior-driven development: though WP:NOTTEXTBOOK issue could be addressed with editing, the lack of sources can't. I particularly oppose to merging this article due to the lack of verifiable content to merge, but redirect may be appropriate (given the self-explanatory name). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.