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. Sandstein 05:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The meager sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY and seem to establish only that project is not active, making it pretty clear that if the sources aren't there already, there aren't any more are coming if only we wait. Poking through all the usual suspect Google searches turns nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SLAMD should not be deleted because it is performance-measurement software in wide use and well known to performance professionals. "Poking through ... Google .. nothing useful" is not an accurate statement by any measure. It is certainly useful to have a coneensus-based deletion mechanism, but accuracy is required of any consensus-based decision making process. - Terry J. Gardner 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff1959 (talk • contribs)
Now, if only you had a reliable independent secondary source to go with that claim, you'd have a policy-based argument. My point about searching Google is that I looked and I don't believe those sources exist. But you're welcome to prove me wrong. Generally speaking, it takes 2 good sources to establish notability. Right now, you have zero. Msnicki (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find signficant coverage in independent reliable sources that would allow this topic to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2012 (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.