WiX: The majority of sources used are primary sources and therefore considered unreliable, such as the official website of Rob Mensching, the developer of WiX, wixtoolset.org, and Microsoft blogs directly related to the article's topic.  The remaining sources are also unreliable blogs.  There is a lack of acceptable sources in the article.  While the topic may be important for Microsoft, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards without extensive and detailed coverage from authoritative sources that could help establish its notability.  Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there is a reason why WiX is notable within software history with being the first open-source project developed by Microsoft (diverging from their profit-centric closed source model), but similar to other installer technologies and like most technical niches, detailed coverage is unlikely to be found outside of the industry, especially with it being a Microsoft-centric tech.  A large number of results are found on Google Scholar where it appears in a number of technical books [3] .  TubularWorld ( talk ) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to delete installation technology-related articles, such as comments made by User:Vlad on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstallAnywhere .  Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of this WiX article it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden?  TubularWorld ( talk ) 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your observation, I've tried looking for this deletionist user, as far as I can remember I hadn't intersected with her anywhere else (for such vendetta / ulterior motives) and while from the login / name she's obviously Armenian, I really don't know why she wants all these technology articles deleted.  With IA it finished finally with a redirect, so the history's not lost, but even I know WiX is more known than IA (InstallAnywhere).  -- Vlad | -> 10:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TubularWorld also, an interesting fact is that she doesn't like versions history in such articles, sometimes these sections are important in terms of size of text, deleting this first would make the article smaller as it used to be, then more prone to be deleted.  -- Vlad | -> 10:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 19:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's secondary sources elsewhere including at least two dedicated books and coverage in other books, at least one web article.  Just needs to be cleaned up so it isn't only cited to some guy's blog.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WikiPedia is highly referenced in Google, when searching for pretty much anything, the en.wiki article (if it exists) is returned in the first 10 results (if not the first 5).  It's a pity to click to such a link only to discover it has been deleted and / or transformed into a redirect!  -- Vlad | -> 14:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a valid reason for keeping.  If this were true, no articles would ever be deleted.  Industrial Insect (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This obviously meets GNG.  X ( talk ) 09:15, 23 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep