Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascade Framework

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 no consensus. Ged UK 13:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Framework

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

This article (and a related one, John Slegers, that I redirected here) seem to have been pulled apart, but fundamentally there just doesn't appear to be the required coverage in sources to be able to write a decent article on this. I found one source that mentioned it in relation to the Blackberry, but that was only a fleeting mention. There doesn't seem to be much else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seem to meet general notability guidelines for websites, more so than most websites on Wikipedia in my opinion. Royal Mate1 20:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1] and [2] (both already referenced in the article) seem to contain the coverage the nom is looking for. ~KvnG 05:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those both look like self-published sources. Anyone can start a website and state a positive or negative opinion about anything - there's no indication that somebody with an impartial view decided it was of any importance. I take a laxer approach to self-published sources than some, for example this site is in my view acceptable for citing serial numbers and content of singles and LPs, but even then, I could not use that source to demonstrate notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not personal blogs and the postings are attributed, not posted by readers; Not clearly WP:SPS in my book. Sources like these is how information now spreads on fast-moving tech topics like this. ~KvnG 21:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Code Geekz site appears to try and be a comprehensive site, but I can't see any obvious source from outside the development community that treats it as important as reliable. Furthermore, one source is just a roundabout of CSS Frameworks, devoting a mere paragraph to it among several others. Since code geekz appears to be trying to documenting everything, irrespective of whether or not the wider non-developer world claims any importance over it, I don't think we would be able to prove any notability from it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we need to find sources from "outside the development community?" I consider a paragraph in a roundup from a WP:RS to be WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. I don't understand what disqualifies this. I don't understand what you find in WP:RS that disqualifies Codegeekz. ~KvnG 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made any edits to the article in the two weeks the AfD has been left open. Therefore I assume you are more interested in arguing than improving articles. Goodbye. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Ritchie333 comments about sources above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Softpedia and bin press are download sites and thus not independent. The rest of the references provided in article are from the developers, blogs, or incidental mentions. The codegeekz.com ref above is a borderline ref, but on its own insufficient to establish notability even if it were solid WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2015 (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.