Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MagicDraw

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 no consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MagicDraw

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

Non-notable software, basically no independent sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The state of the article and its current sources are poor. It should be improved. I did a Google search and found the following:https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/no-magic-magicdraw https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228988537_Towards_implementing_a_framework_for_modeling_software_requirements_in_MagicDraw_UMLhttp://base.thep.lu.se/chrome/site/2.17/html/developerdoc/write_doc/documentation.magicdraw.htmlhttp://www.floppybunny.org/robin/web/virtualclassroom/chap11/case_tool_tuts/magicdraw/class.pdf and this one is weak https://conf.researchr.org/event/sle-2017/sle-2017-papers-tool-demonstration-a-development-environment-for-the-alf-language-within-the-magicdraw-uml-tool. This leads me to believe that the subject is important in academic circles and so the subject just meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Horrible article. Promotional language, walls of unsourced content... even if this article is kept, it should be rewritten via TNT. I will review above sources later, but at least the second link (PDF) gives me error 404. Pavlor (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short review of the sources above: First source looks like nice review, but the host site seems to have quite liberal publishing policy - anyone can post reviews, editorial policy is limited to title of the article and basic oversight over terms of use and community guidelines. Not that kind of RS I would like. Second source reports error 404. Third source is behind paywall - I don´t have access to it to judge. Pavlor (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (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.