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

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. No indication of notability. Most sources provided here are old, not reliable, and/or merely indicate that the product exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draco.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unreferenced article which doesn't assert notability. PROD declined, but problem has persisted. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Korath (Talk) 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tagged for notability for two years now. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google News finds only listings in product comparison charts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per [1] and [2]. —Korath (Talk) 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is way too short, making it a stub. It also only has 1 reference, so I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAustinMan (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per numerous independent sources: [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; etc. LotLE×talk 10:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Current?

The sources given above seem to give a hint why the article hasn't been expanded. They're all over 2 years old. Last activity on the project's Sourceforge repo [8] was over three years ago. Was it more popular back then, and has since declined in importance? Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2010 (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.