Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanitizer (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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The article was speedy deleted in a previous discussion, however this COI editor (whose only edits have been to promote this software and vote against its deletion) has been particularly determined and recreated it. Needless to say, a quick search reveals that there has been no blitz of media coverage in the few months between its deletion and recreation, and so I am nominating for deletion again as a non-notable piece of software. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Two sources cited are questionable and Xanitizer's mentions are brief and categorical. The third reference is commercial and promotional. Fails WP:RS, ergo fails WP:N. Tapered (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per above - David Gerard (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The re-creation of the article wasn't in a bad intention, but last time comment was that the article could be recreated if there are other sources. I'm sorry to hear that the cited sources are not enough. I'm still thinking that the article is not promotional, it just informs that the tool exists. And it is a little bit of a hen and egg problem - how to get more sources if nobody knows about the tool? I checked some of the other tools on the List of tools for static code analysis and most of them do not differ from this article. In fact, tools like JArchitect have no references at all. It is a little bit frustrating, especially since Xanitizer is a free to use tool, that could not simply "sponsor" some articles that can be used as references. So I beg to keep the article and give it some time. I will add other sources as soon as they are available. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWenzel (talk • contribs) 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)  — Note to closing admin: NWenzel (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:GNG - to stick around it needs third-party evidence of notability in sources that meets WP:RS, for a start - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I would also vote for keeping this article as long as other tools without references can stay, e.g. JArchitect.Azitzewitz (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, and annul bids to keep The author of the article, who is a WP:SPA, and a one-day-old account with two edits are the only ones to vote "Keep". The SPA's defense is a disingenuous WP:OSE suggesting that there are no notable sources on JArchitect (there are). There are no notable references about Xanitizer, which is now at least 6 months old, and being listed on the OWASP Wiki does not lend any weight to its importance. Jergling (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete no significant coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:21, 16 September 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.