Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Build (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 06:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Visual Build
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A interesting application, but I'm having numerous notability concerns. The .NET Developer's Journal article is reliable, but a subject must be majorly covered in an article by a NOTABLE publication (or at least notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page) for the subject to be considered notable. The only other source listed here is a magazine article only briefly mentioning the application. A google news search was not of much help either, as most of the articles in that search were about horror films that had nothing to do with the program. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep See if this article can be improved for a couple days before deleting it. It may just be in need of better writing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:MERCY argument. The article has been around since approximately 2008 (judging by when the first articles for deletion discussion of this article took place). Barely any significant coverage of the software has appeared in reliable sources since the 2005 .NET Developer's Journal article. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I have not edited this page before, why would it be a WP:MERCY argument? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe WP:MERCY only applies if that argument was by a person who edited the page, but this is still an invalid argument given that you did not comment to keep the article based on any notability standard. Saying that "See if this article can be improved for a couple days before deleting it" is not valid given that the article has been around for a long time and barely any good sources have popped up about the topic. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I found some sources which discuss this, they suggest at least weak notability:
 * Xie, Qing, and Atif M. Memon. "Rapid" crash testing" for continuously evolving GUI-based software applications." Software Maintenance, 2005. ICSM'05. Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2005.
 * Memon, Atif, Adithya Nagarajan, and Qing Xie. "Automating regression testing for evolving GUI software." Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 17.1 (2005): 27-64.
 * The first three mention this tool as one of several examples of a particular class of tool, but do not discuss it in any further detail than that. The last reference contains slightly more than one page discussing its features. SJK (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first three mention this tool as one of several examples of a particular class of tool, but do not discuss it in any further detail than that. The last reference contains slightly more than one page discussing its features. SJK (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first three mention this tool as one of several examples of a particular class of tool, but do not discuss it in any further detail than that. The last reference contains slightly more than one page discussing its features. SJK (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2016 (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.