Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PVS-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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PVS-Studio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently non-notable (but widely spammed) software. All references seem to be non-reliable sources and/or articles by/interviews with the developers. Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article provides multiple reference sources, and they are certainty not only by the developers themselves, such as an article in Dr. Dobb's Journal, interview with John Carmack on Gamasutra etc. The topic is certainly not less notable then in most of the articles for C++ tools on List of tools for static code analysis. Is this Red Lizard Software article more notable then the discussed one? Certainly not! If article on PVS-Studio has to be deleted, then more that a half of tools from this should be deleted as well.--PaulEremeeff (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — PaulEremeeff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Dr. Dobb's article was written by Andrey Karpov, a PVS-Studio developer. The Carmack references are to Twitter posts or to interviews where he mentions PVS-Studio only in passing. None of these count as reliable sources establishing the notability of the tool.  If you feel you've found other articles on tools which also fail to meet our inclusion criteria, that's not an argument for keeping this one; please nominate those articles for deletion as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is that Dr. Dobb's or Gamasutra are not reliable, as both a well-established and published sources made by professionals. An interview with the developer was certainly reviewed by a professional editor before publication. Targeting this particular tool for the deletion, ignoring dozens of similar precedents, as well as groundless accusations of tools's developers in spamming, looks as a bias of a particular user against the topic in question.PaulEremeeff (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, please read our policy and guideline on reliable sources and notability. Regarding the spamming, I never accused the developers of this (though now that you mention it, I do wonder how anyone else would have any motivation for doing so).  The PVS-Studio website is, in fact, currently blacklisted from the English Wikipedia for spamming, and requests to have it removed from the blacklist have been rejected.   —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A have read this and I've found the source to be reliable. It is up to the moderator now to determine the correct side of this question. As I understand, requests for removing PVS-Studio website from the blacklist were rejected based on the lack of an established user supporting this notion, and not because of the malware activity on part of the aforementioned site. The motivation for spamming a particular website can be found in a bias of third-party malevolent person. It is similar to proposing the deletion of one particular article, while ignoring other precedents.PaulEremeeff (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to be the same Paul Eremeev who is employed by PVS? If so, please make sure you read, understand, and comply with our policy on paid contributions and with our conflict of interest guideline. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am indeed the same person, as I do not hide my identity, as some other users. Does being employed by a certain company prohibits me from contributing? Because all I can see now is the misrepresentation of the sources I've provided as an advertisement and a bias toward one particular article, even if the presented sources themselves are independent and the interested party has no ability to influence them. And I am certainly not paid for my contributions, as my employer derives no profit from being present on Wikipedia, our online resources even being unfairly blacklisted as you've mentioned earlier.PaulEremeeff (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Twitter, blog, etc. - this article misses reliable sources. We are not a repository of companies, software, or anything else; notability has to be satisfied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, everything I can find looks like an advertisement Deunanknute (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The software is notable and e.g. used by Wine project (https://www.winehq.org/announce/1.7.35). For open source software it's difficult to find reliable sources, because there are no.--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NSOFT is actually quite lenient when it comes to open source software. This isn't an open source product, though, it's proprietary/closed/non-free/whatchamacallit. Notability is not inherited and the only thing the Wine folks left are version control statuses, not significant coverage of the tool. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a "Category:Proprietary_software", and the article is well written and reasonably cited. Elendal (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am very much in favor to keep the article. But I agree the part about "diagnostic capabilities" sounds a bit like commercial, so I vote for removing that part. But, otherwise, I think the article is worth keeping, especially for people looking for such kind of tools and who start with Wikipedia search. Axeoth (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep The software is notable, i.e. is mentioned in multiple research sources (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22PVS-Studio%22), for example 'Symbolic Analysis of Concurrency Errors in OpenMP Programs'(http://www.cs.uwyo.edu/~lwang7/papers/ICPP2013.pdf), published by IEEE Xplore, used by notable software delevopers (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134829/carmack_on_rage.php) and open source projects (https://www.winehq.org/search/?q=pvs-studio). --PaulEremeeff (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep If you want a reliable source and point of view: http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/ under the 'Other static analysis tools'. I am not involved in PVS-Studio, but I am a programmer and I find the average information about static tools poor and badly written. In the PVS-Studio page I always find competent writers about serious programming. Thanks for your consideration, --Hedoluna (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Hedoluna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The entirety of the text on that page about PVS-Studio is as follows: "One other tool you can use is PVS-Studio. There is a comparison of Cppcheck and PVS-Studio and we believe it's a good and honest comparison. PVS-Studio is commercial, however there is a free trial." The comparison linked to is authored by the PVS-Studio developers themselves.  I don't see how either of these documents count as reliable references for the purposes of establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability in a small field as C++ static code analysis could be quite hard to prove, for every tool out there. I think there are maybe 1 out of 1000 programmers who are into the field. May you please a link towards a good C++ static code analysis page that you think is notable? This could be really speedup the process. Thanks in advance. --Hedoluna (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why notability would be any easier or harder to prove for this topic than for any other—that's what the general notability guideline is for. I can understand why, for purposes of comparison, you'd like to see an example of an article on an indisputably notable static analyzer for C++, but unfortunately I don't think we have any at the moment.  (We do have Clang, though that's a complete compiler front-end rather than a dedicated static analysis tool, and in any case its sourcing is also very poor.) —Psychonaut (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. As above, the article has a number of references, but they do not meet the threshold of significant independent coverage for a range of reasons. The Dr. Dobb's article was written by a PVS-Studio developer. and is not independent. sourceforge.net/ is edited by community members and has no editorial oversight or policy, thus not RS. The other coverage is all incidental mentions or blogs/non-WP:RS sites.Dialectric (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if Dr. Dobb's article was written by a developer, the fact that it was published means that this article was reviewed by an independent editor (of Dr. Dobb's), so I do not see, how the identity of the author affects the notability. Several of the research papers that I've linked above certainly contain more than a passing mention of the analyzer, though it should be noted, that some of them are written in Russian and Ukrainian. Again, I belive, that the IEEE Xplore does have an editorial review and is not a community managed source (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6687387&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6687387, the pdf itself is available here: http://www.cs.uwyo.edu/~lwang7/papers/ICPP2013.pdf ).--PaulEremeeff (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of tools for static code analysis (that article's contents should be tabled, btw, and much of its blue-link contents could probably be bundled into this AfD): Article reads like WP:ADMASQ. This is an obscure tool whose strengths and limitations are best dealt with in a comparison article. Pax 00:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2015 (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.