Talk:NDepend

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Secondary sources[edit]

Secondary sources on Google News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

This looks more like an advertisement or self promotion. Removing the screen shots and cleaning up the article. 74.167.252.158 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertisement but a simple wikipedia article that presents facts and only facts. Visualizations (Graph and Matrix) are important parts of the tool, hence the two screenshots. The article was cleaned up and is being actively maintained. 93.233.81.61 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Being factual" (in the sense of "verifiable" WP:V) is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. The original comment should be heeded, Wikipedia should not be used as a free advertising platform. Take a look at the Featured article on computing [1], but realize that these are topics that are considered notable. This article, from appearances and references supplied, has no particular market share, no significant number of users, makes no particular advance in technology. In fact, the article should be a candidate for deletion. Keep it simple and brief. And if there is any proof of notability, give reliable references. (Not the company's web site.) Piano non troppo (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will first add some external references that shows notability as you suggested. The goal here is just to make a nice and proper wikipedia article that follows all the rules and the recommended guidelines. Vaucouleur (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piano non troppo: I added external links that shows notability as you suggested. The authors are all active members of the .Net community. I can add more links if required. (A simple google search can further show that this is a notable and well-known tool in the .Net community. If you require yet more proof of notability, please let me know.) Can you suggest some ways I can further improve the article? Vaucouleur (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]