Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vue.js

Vue.js

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

WP:PROMO, does not meet GNG. Deprodded as "claim of notability in download statistics." There's one RS in here from InfoWorld, and that's about it. Jaxenter is essentially less of the same information, and we don't take user-gen content from repositories or Meetup.com as RS. Medium.com is a blog, so the Laravel recommendation is totally false - one user shows how to use it; it's not an endorsement. MSJapan (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JavaScript templating, where it is mentioned. I found two InfoWorld articles [1],[2], but both have a lot of quoting of primary sources and not much secondary commentary.--RS, but not in quite enough depth. The download stats are an assertion of significance sufficient to avoid a speedy deletion and perhaps enough to cast doubt on a prod, but not enough for notability, because you can't build an article on a download stat. I don't see any good merge target. A redirect to JavaScript templating would be reasonable, but a merge would be unbalance the article. VueJS or vue.js are reasonable search terms, so a redirect could be justified. --Mark viking (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect instead as my own searches have found not found substantially better, this can be redirected however since it's connected. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]