Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynace

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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynace

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

Lacks reliable, independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turns up nothing helpful. This may simply be a case of WP:Too soon but Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystall ball nor is it for WP:Promotion. Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above, no notable independent sources or evidence of notability (I summarized the problems with the offered references on the article talk page). Rwessel (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry Blake, it is a really really cool bit of software, adding full OO constructs, including generics (wow!) to C, but all the sources are primary and all the GHits I found are you. I did find the Dr Doobs article, but I don't think it makes for a good secondary source. scope_creep talk 00:005 21 November 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.