Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspector Eiffel


 * 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   merge to EiffelStudio. j⚛e deckertalk 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Inspector Eiffel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unreleased software WP:CRYSTAL no indication of notability. Unsourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The software IS released in Beta and will be released in production in a matter of just a few days. There is already documentation on the Eiffel.com website as well as the Master's Thesis paper that was written as a result of the tools creation. So, I am suggesting that the notions of "unreleased software" is trivial in the face of imminent release and that the "unsourced" is simply not true for the reasons already stated. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljr1981 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software. A master's thesis is not considered a reliable source.Dialectric (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  00:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Merge to EiffelStudio: clearly this is WP:TOOSOON manifestation, and I see no policy-based rationale to keep the article. Still, we accidentially recieved neutral and ballanced description of Eiffel-related tool, and given the spotty coverage of topic in Wikipedia I believe we should preserve this material. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:42, 30 May 2014 (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.