Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAPUI5

SAPUI5

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

No evidence of notability for this product. Few Google hits, nothing that's substantial, independent, and in reliable sources. What little there is consists of instructions and documentation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found a few links, particularly at News, but nothing convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note: I am SAP employee and involved with the SAPUI5 project, see my conflict of interest declaration. I think I'm still allowed to contribute facts to the notability/deletion discussion:

There are 282,000 Google hits, which is not really "few". It's rather similar to (or higher than) for similar libraries like ExtJS (378,000), mootools (345,000) DHTMLX (283,000), Ample SDK (208,000), qooxdoo (145,000), and jQWidgets (87,700), which all have a Wikipedia page where notability is not questioned. Comparing SAPUI5 to those others in Google Trends also indicates that SAPUI5 is at least as important to public interest as those are.
There are books written specifically about SAPUI5, like "Getting Started with SAPUI5" (also available in German translation) and "SAPUI5 - The Comprehensive Guide"
There are references in print media like the popular German magazine iX
There are references in online publications like computerworld.com and infoworld.com.
There are scientific theses covering SAPUI5 like this one (Swedish; analysis whether UI5 can satisfy the expectations for user interfaces at a time where mobile devices are ubiquitous), this one (goal-oriented performance models, tested with UI5) and this one (evaluating JavaScript MVC frameworks for usage in collaborative web applications)

There are more, but as far as I have understood, these references should be sufficient to establish notability. Please excuse that I have posted the same content on the article's talk page - I am not sure where the notability discussion will be predominantly led. Akudev (talk)(COI) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address your Google comment at the moment, before I have a chance to review the rest of what you've written: The number that Google shows at the top of search results—282,000, as you said—is meaningless, and has been for many years. If you actually page through the search results, Google says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 53 already displayed." If you click the link to show other results anyway, it shows about 540—most of which amounts to technical documentation for the product, which doesn't contribute to a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two-sentence mentions of SAPUI5 in each of the two magazine articles you referenced don't amount to "substantial coverage". The library is mentioned only as one item on a list of SAP's current activities. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]