Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocktail (MVVM 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 delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cocktail (MVVM framework)

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

Non notable software - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Google searching is hard based on the common name, but searches for "Cocktail Silverlight" or "Cocktail Framework" find nothing in RSes. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep Keep this topic. Would third-part sources be sufficient to establish significant coverage? Cocktail was launched as product only today, so it may take some time before articles and blog posts show up in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaBlade (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources are necessary to establish notability, correct. They don't have to be available online, but can be any kind of reliable third-party newspaper, magazine, journal, etc. They have to conform to WP:RS, and blog posts don't satisfy that requirement. But if nothing has been written yet then you should wait until this received third-party coverage in multiple sources before writing the article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 16. Snotbot t • c » 20:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, IdeaBlade is a SPA, having edited little more than this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no indications of notability. Be it the fate of this software or a WP:TOOSOON issue, right now the topic doesn't pass even WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2012 (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.