Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReSharper

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. Policy based consensus is clear here, SPA sources successfully rebutted. Secret ^account 04:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ReSharper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. Cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSOFT#Inclusion definition of notability is The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. I think the number of questions tagged 'ReSharper' and the reliability of stackoverflow.com as a source are enough to satisfy the definition of notability. Dmimat (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)— Dmimat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It should be extensive coverage in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new references are added recently, according to [1] Philip Torchinsky (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First recently added reference, [2] is an entry that states it exists but could be paid for and is not a secondary source as it appears to be written by "JetBrains", the manufacturer of the product in question. All of the links are to how-to sections on the company's website.

The second, [3] is to StackOverflow and lists all mentions of the product. No feature articles.

Nothing that even approaches a RS. Still can't find any when I search on-line. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant RS coverage. Stackoverflow is user editable - questions are submitted and answered by anyone - and therefore it is not considered a reliable source. A listing on Microsoft's 'Products and Extensions for Visual Studio' shows the software exists, but does not constitute significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article was improved, and more external links to reviews and articles were added, see [4] Zhuravlik26 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)— Zhuravlik26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I reworked the article, now it includes references for provided content, and seems that now there is no content that could be treated as advertising. If any ideas what should be improved next, I'm ready to accept them and work more on this article. Cheers, Zhuravlik26 (talk) 7:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment If you're going to "improve" the article, you could add some actual RSes and less marketing fluff. http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2009/09/01/write-better-code-faster-with-resharper-4.5.aspx written in 2009 by Peter Vogel. Might qualify as a RS with enough focus on the tool but it seems to be a product review of an old version, 4.5. If it were a notable tool, there would be reviews on every release and they're up to 7.1. http://www.h-online.com/developer/news/item/ReSharper-7-set-for-Visual-Studio-2012-and-WinRT-1654669.html was written by Harald M. Genauck. The latter is not entirely a RS but at least it's for a more recent version of the product.

I would like to point out that all three of the editors who voted keep are WP:SPAs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not notable and advert and promotion. Reads like a promotional pamphlet. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence of the significant coverage in reliable sources that would be required to demonstrate notability. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added two book references, and more links to Microsoft's resources. I'll improve the style of article a bit later today, as the article is too overloaded and must be shorter. If you have any further opinions on provided references (currently not on style, as it will be improved:), and if you know more reliable sources on .NET development than I provided, feel free to mention them here. Yes, this is the first article I work on in English section of Wikipedia, so I'll be pleased to know about my mistakes to not repeat them in other articles I'll edit in future. Cheers, Zhuravlik26 (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. (This is important, but was moved to the outdated part of discussion, so I re-add this as comment). The article is fully reworked, and now includes references for all provided content. Also, all content that seems to be "marketing fluff" is dropped. If any ideas what should be improved next, I'm ready to accept them and work more on this article. Regards, Zhuravlik26 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.