Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparx Enterprise Architect


 * 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 Sparx Systems. Non-admin closure to help with extraordinary backlog. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sparx Enterprise Architect

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

undefined notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - I tagged this, and nobody's working on it. There's not much to the article aside from a list of features.  It's impossible to tell if this has been widely adopted or what good it's for.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per discussion below.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk. ) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's a crappy article, but it is a real product from a real company (my company uses it).  WP:NOTE says, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..  These:   fit that description so I'd say this (just barely) meets notability (depending on your definition of significant).  Slap some random fix me type templates on it and let it live. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, it has been notability tagged for over a month with no movement on it at all. The sources you mention aren't really "published" sources.  Something like an O'Reilly guide might do it.  Maybe this is worth a merge to the (rather anemic and potentially AfD-able) Sparx Systems instead.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk.  ) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly go along with the merge. Sparx is pretty much a one-product company.  There's no justification for two articles.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Sparx Enterprise Architect and Sparx Systems stubs: not enough content in either to justify separate articles. — Athaenara  ✉  00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the Sparx Systems stub INTO this article. Gartner included EA in a recent "magic quadrant" report .  It is also mentioned in the editorial review for a classic textbook on OO analysis and development (Booch et al).  .  nafisto (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.13.2 (talk)


 * 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.