English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/JaCoCo

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 keep. Consensus here is that the topic meets or passes Wikipedia's threshold for notability. Additionally, several sources have been added to the article after it was nominated for deletion (it was unsourced at the time of the AfD nomination, see [1]). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

JaCoCo

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

Unsourced, couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSOFT. Taken to AfD after it was deprodded without addressing the reasons for the nomination. Jarkeld (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Added a couple of sources. One is a book published in UK, and another is an independent review. Also consider these reliable sources: "Code Coverage for Maven Integrated in NetBeans IDE 7.2" published by Oracle Corporation, and "IntelliJ IDEA 12.0 Web Help", as part of IntelliJ IDEA manual. All of them are in references. Let me know if it doesn't count or not enough sources. Though it is a bit hard to find something reliable, as the library is on the cutting edge of Java code coverage tools, I'm sure it's possible. --Sfoid (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 01:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep. On the surface, it seems like an article is premature here - as noted, above, this is a bit cutting edge. But there are sources, and the ones I've checked seem to be ok. There isn't a lot here, and notability is paper thin - but it's just barely sufficient, I think. Obviously, more sources would be best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley ^(review) 23:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I think it manages to pass the notability threshold. Someone knowledgeable in the subject ought to put some editing into it, though. Ducknish (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep It passes notability currently DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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.