mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cppcheck Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cppcheck

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. All the Keep votes are from IPs locating to the same area (indeed, two are the same one) and effectively amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No notability has been shown per the Delete comments. Black Kite 23:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cppcheck

[edit]
Cppcheck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Static code analysis isn't that "hot" in mainstream media, so getting "significant" coverage is nearly impossible. Just look at some other Wikipedia articles about tools that do similar job at List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis. Do they have coverage? Perhaps 2 or 3 of them have more references than Cppcheck. So why is Cppcheck the only one considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. Did you? It says that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". I'm not arguing that Cppcheck should be kept, because similar articles have been kept, I'm only asking for consistency. So can you please answer, why is the Cppcheck the only one, considering that other similar articles have less references (some don't have any). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The wikipedia definition of "significant coverage" is met by the software website (already referenced SF documentation) covering the initial claims of this article. Internal output from the tool itself forms similar coverage for the statements of output. As commented above the coverage of this tool is small, due to the nature of the industry to which it applies. As one of the extremely few freely available static analysis tools its importance is vastly more than its available references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.166.233 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per 60.234.166.233's keep argument. Its own website is definitely not viable for evidence of notability. If there's no independent coverage of it, WP:V WP:N fail. Even if that's the nature of the topic, that doesn't mean "a big fish in a pond that nobody fishes in" doesn't make that fish notable anywhere outside that pond. However, Static code analysis is an article on this general topic that could certainly use some work. That might be a good place to discuss the different tools, and refs for them there could be useful. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the "own website" is only a collection of links to other websites showing the actual evidence. The article has e.g. the claim about 30 bugs in the Linux kernel. Project's website lists links to all these bug reports in the kernel's bug tracking system, so I think there is a valid reference for that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and "list of uses" does not satisfy me for notability (in the WP sense). If it really is a generally-regarded-as-useful tool that is notable, then someone will have written about it, possibly highlighting some key places it was used ("popular among Linux kernel developers", "critical for tracking down two notable kernel bugs", etc.) But simple evidence of use is not evidence of notability in the WP sense. It's annoying that niche products that are popular in the niche may not (and maybe not even ever) get an article. An interesting parallel is in WP:NEO, which remarks "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." DMacks (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." So can you please answer, why is the Cppcheck considered for deletion, considering that other similar articles have less references (some don't have any). I already asked this above but didn't get answer for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This software fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are rules, but there are also articles who have been in Wikipedia against the rules for years. I don't see why this article should be an exception in this category and be the only one to be deleted. Keep in mind that we are not talking about Star Wars figures or games here. The amount of static code analysis programs is relatively small. If having an own article is not possible, the information could be merged to Static code analysis with other similar tools. But would that grow the size of a single article too big, if code examples and feature lists are added there for every tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found. So far, the only argument that has been advanced in favor of keeping the article is that other bad articles exist on Wikipedia, which I find exceptionally unpersuasive. No one seems to be disputing that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, which is the question at hand here. —Caesura(t) 18:01, 15 November 2009 (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.