Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AgileJ StructureViews

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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgileJ StructureViews

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

Not notable. There is a lack of coverage AgileJ StructureViews in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a mix of PR, primary and listings. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The sources are brief and seem to be based on press releases. Former versions of the article had cites to a couple of blog posts by users who tried it out, but can't find any coverage in reliable 3rd-party sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's worth noting that it's rare for such tools to be covered in the media (though this doesn't exempt it). Any sources would likely be only in journals. [1] indicates it being mentioned in a few papers (14), all of which have few if any citations, so it does not seem that this is a widely used software. It's also not the only one of its kind. Other eclipse plugins with similar functionality include [2] [3]. To compare it to other Java tools that have wikipedia articles, FindBugs has had a much larger impact, with [4] nearly 2000 papers mentioning it, with more citations. ― Padenton |☎ 22:00, 19 March 2015 (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.