Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuildMaster

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BuildMaster

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

Seems to be a non-notable software platform. Can not find much discussion outside of primary sources on Google. Only trivial or incidental coverage on StackOverflow.com. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Pol430 talk to me 15:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

As mentioned on User talk:Pol430... like most of the software platforms/tool, BuildMaster is most certainly notable within its own niche (some have argued that the niche itself is non-notable and should be merged into single paragraphs on the software engineering page), and virtually all of these are single-sourced from the project's own website or from paid listings and press releases. If these articles are unacceptable on Wikipedia, then most niche articles (see Comparison of issue-tracking systems, Comparison of revision control software, Comparison of project management software, etc) should be deleted too.Atpapa (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)— Atpapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is irrelevant at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, there's nothing to be found in the Google results and nothing offered by the article itself. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I fail to see what "niche" this software is supposed to be notable in. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2012 (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.