Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LLBLGen Pro (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LLBLGen Pro

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

I tagged this for speedy but as it was nominated once before, here we are and my searches simply found nothing better at all to suggest better notability and improvement and I'm simply not gathering how this is solidly notable from that first AfD. Notifying the only still active past users MrOllie, scope_creep, LFaraone and Walter Görlitz and also close article contributor Otis Inf. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is entirely notable and easily passes WP:GNG. It is a highly specialized piece of software, which is still well used and well respected in the industry. The article has not been updated for some time, but it is still used and gives a good description of what it is, links code generation and object-relational mapping, and describes well a complex and very expensive piece of software, at the forefront of the industry. Why is it being nominated again? I think this nomination is vexatious. If you wanted to know what the previous article AFD was about, read the previous AFD. scope_creep talk 12:38 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only independent ref currently in the article, infoq.com, is little more than a feature listing and does not clarify why the software is notable. The only source mentioned in the past afd that meets the criterea of significant independent coverage is the 'Pro LINQ Object Relational Mapping with C# 2008' book, the pages of which do not appear to be web-accessible. On its own, this single book ref is not sufficient to clearly establish notability, and the other refs are incidental mentions, blogs and a self-published book, none of which establish notability. Complexity and expense are not criteria used to determine notability. Dialectric (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 19 December 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.