Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonar (software quality)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sonar (software quality)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, removed by author of the article. This article does not assert its notability. Fails WP:RS, WP:N. It also sort of reads like an advertisement. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * HelloAnnyong, as I mentioned in the Edit Summary when I removed the tag, I do think this article has value because Sonar definitely belongs to the code quality analysis ecosystem. I have made a couple of amendments in order to try to respond to your critics (added references and simplify a bit not to read like an advertisement. Since I am not not an expert in writing WP articles, can you guide me a bit to improve the article ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaudol (talk • contribs) 14:55, May 9, 2009
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I rewrote the paragraph about plug-ins and the article no longer seems promotional in the least. For notability and verifiability concerns, see WP:NOTE, especially the first two sections as the primary problem I see with the article is a lack of included reliable independent references.  I didn't look for resources myself, I am responding to the request for assistance.  Also review WP:COI. Drawn Some (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm thinking someone should check to make sure my re-write is accurate~ Drawn Some (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this still doesn't seem to use WP:RS and hasn't established WP:NOTE. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sonar is an open source project and I am a contributor on the project. A week ago, I decided to create a WP page on Sonar. As soon as I created the page, it was proposed for deletion because it is not notable enough and I did not provide enough RS. Fine! I am not an expert of Wikipedia, so I decide to learn a little bit... In the WP:N page : ''it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft...''. I don't have the impression that anybody tried to improve the page before proposing for deletion. On the WP:RS side, I tried to add blog entries of people who have described why they use Sonar, why they chose it... unfortunately, blog entries are generally blocked by a bot, which is fair enough. The only one I could leave is a link on the Jolt Award (Sonar won a prize this year) and a talk where Sonar is mentioned when planning for Maven 3. Guys, I am really sorry, but if you don't let blog entries being published (which is fair enough), don't expect to find many RS for open source products... I looked at 2 dozen pages of them and and there are very little (PMD, Checkstyle...). Sonar exists and is a recognized player in the code quality ecosystem. Around 2,000 people download it every month. But what can I do ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaudol (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — Gaudol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Before you read this section, please be aware that I am in a conflict of interest on this article


 * I'm laughing. We talk about a 100% open-source project. What's the problem guys ? There are not enough references ? OK, have a look at google and delete wikipedia pages like checkstyle/PMD/lucene/continuum... It's an open-source project sponsored by a company ? OK delete nuxeo, netbeans and many more. You think that this article is written just to make wikipedia censors loose their time ? OK, go delete pure commercial articles like "cast software" or "sonar cakewalk". Sorry for this comment but I'm really irritated by your determination to censor this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cx8lettres (talk • contribs) 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)  — Cx8lettres (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It's not about being an open-source project - plenty of open-source projects are notable. It's about having reliable sources, which means not just blogs, or self-published docs. And your comment about other pages doesn't really apply. Each article should be judged on it's on merit about whether or not it's encyclopedic and has reliable sources. If it meets those, it should stay. If not, it should be fixed or removed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just made another google-check, and other than Sonar's own press release, I have a hard time finding sources for this. The Jolt award is something, but one award doesn't make a software product notable. If you know of other good sources, please add them. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that most sources are french articles or blogs. But here are some reliable facts that are not quoted in the article : Sonar is project of the month at codehaus foundation and was introduced at Netherlands Java User Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cx8lettres (talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have done several searches for sources but have been unable to find any due to unrelated results showing up. If the creator of this article can find some reliable sources (even if they are written in French), I would be willing to reconsider my vote. Cunard (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have updated the page with reliable sources in French : you can reconsider your vote :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaudol (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: At least two of the links you added are blogs, which fail WP:RS. Additionally, one of links (third from the bottom in this edit) only has a link to Sonar. The link that's second from the bottom only mentions Sonar once in a list. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (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.