Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQL Enlight Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SQL_Enlight

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Enlight (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)

Contested prod, removed by author. Non-notable product. I can't find any sources to back up that this product is notable in any capacity. Fails WP:RS, WP:PRODUCT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Certainly needs some amount of work to expand and wikify but certainly not less notable than the list of Static Analysis tools already on Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just because there's a list of tools doesn't mean that this automatically gets included. It's got no coverage in news, magazines, or books. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It simply not the type of software product that is going to get a large coverage in books or news and certainly not any magazines, if at all. It should be kept. scope_creep (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a static code analysis and refactoring tool for Microsoft SQL Server. We need a speedy deletion criterion for minor products, because this contains no minimal claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it because the arguements from the original poster are correct. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 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.