Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ColdBox Platform

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 over the boundary between "independent" and "affiliated" sources and therefore on the application of WP:GNG. Since the vast majority of the article is certainly verifiable, default to keep. Der yck C. 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ColdBox Platform

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

I would normally nominate an article of this sort of speedy G11 as highly promotional, but there seems as possibility that it might actually be notable enough to be worth sourcing and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete: I found no reliable sources covering the topic. I would note, that there is a book on topic, but it written by software's main developer and published by the company behind this software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to note that as of this revision I still consider the sources too weak for even borderline keep !vote. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ColdBox is a popular MVC framework, widely used by CFML developers and has existed since 2006. Every other major CFML framework is on Wikipedia as I think they should be (CFWheels, Mach II, FW\1, ColdSpring, FuseBox, etc) ColdBox is in use by many large companies such as NASA and the FAA. CFML is more of a niche market, so there's not typically a lot a bleed-over into the normal techie sites probably deemed as "notable", but there is exhaustive documentation and many blogs about ColdBox from authors who are notable within the CFML community. There are some good external references that mention ColdBox that we can add to this page from mainstream sites like adobe.com: http://cookbooks.adobe.com/post_How_do_you_build_a_RESTful_service_in_ColdFusion_u-17901.html Also, there are some good third-party case studies: http://www.amcomtech.net/whitepapers/MVC%20Framework%20Analysis.pdf This page can probably be edited to remove wording that seems too promotional, but I'd say the ColdBox page is definitely worth keeping with some clean up and reference additions. I am Brad Wood, the platform evangelist for the ColdBox framework and I'm pretty certain I've edited the ColdBox page a couple times in the past (updating release versions). — 99.13.192.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 01:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- I don't see how the reviews of the developer of closely related product (Adobe benefits from promoting software depending on their products) and a recommendation by one IT consultant (who earns his living by deploying this software) contribute to this product's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited this article to make it more objective and remove promotional sounding verbiage. I also cleaned up some redundant text on the page and supplied a couple of external references other than the project's main site. -- Brad Wood. — 99.13.192.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrij, you tried the same nonsense on the FuseBox (programming) deletion page and were told by Rlendog that you were misapplying the independence clause of WP:N. It is only logical that sources of information pertaining to a CFML framework are going to come from people and companies bearing some affiliation to ColdFusion. You aren't going to find articles about ColdFusion in a .NET magazine. Neither of the links I provided were written by people directly "affiliated with the subject or its creator" which satisfies the independence requirement. Dismissing a source because its business uses that technology is also silly, and WP's notability guidelines say nothing about that. Neither of the sources I posted are promotional material either. I would definitely say that Adobe.com would be a notable source-- they have no affiliation with the ColdBox framework. ~Brad Wood — 64.126.7.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- So you think that calling my position "nonsense" makes it weaker? Not actually, as the validity of my point is obvious — these sources financially benefit from coverage of the topic and thus have inherent bias towards finding this subject worth notable. As the whole notability thing revolves around the connotation that reliable sources do a good job of unbiased judgment on notability; thus biased sources are not reliable in context of WP:N, and taking biased judgment in account defeats the very purpose of the policy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't need to call your comments nonesense to make them weak. They already are what they are. Nowhere in the WP notability page is it said that any source must be dismissed if it can possibly be construed that the livelihood of the author can be tied to the success of the subject they are providing information on. You are extending your own interpretation of the WP:N guidelines to exclude a significant number of sources on Wikipedia subjects everywhere. The independent requirement of the notability guidelines are related to self-promotion. Here is a quote about the kinds of sources that are not independent, "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies". Just because a company uses ColdFusion does not place them in any of those categories. ~Brad Wood — 64.126.7.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    - WP:N disagrees with your: '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.' Benefiting from something is a strong affiliation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Negative. "Affiliated" is a broad term and you are stretching well beyond the intent of Wikipedia. It is clear that Wikipedia intends affiliation be someone directly involved with the creation or maintenance of the subject. Just because someone uses a technology hardly makes them affiliated at that level. That's a weak affiliation at best. Please refer to my quote above of actual items used by Wikipedia as examples of affiliation. "Uses the product" is not in the list. Not even close. Therefore WP:N disagrees with you. ~Brad Wood
        You know, when the list starts with "For example", it is generally considered non-exclusive. I see, your personal belief is that people earning on your software are not biased in favor of it. OK. You may even want to yet again call my argument nonsense, I'm just bailing out of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because a list is non-exclusive does not imply that it automatically must include your interpretation. My assertion is that the examples in WP:N categorically show a higher degree of affiliation than simply using a product or the language a product was written in. I agree that a person using a product can have a bias, but it would be a fallacy to then assert that all users of a product (or the language used to create the product) do have a bias and therefore are acting on bad faith and incapable of being neutral. And to be clear, we're not even talking about "users" of a product (ColdBox). We're simply talking about sources in the ColdFusion community. These are experts in the language which was used to write ColdBox. Both of my references above which you would like to discount were written by ColdFusion experts who were not using the ColdBox framework. The notes on independent sources caution against "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them". I would submit to you that a "strong connection" has not been demonstrated which is why these sources are independent. ~Brad Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.192.9 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ColdBox is affiliated with Adobe in the same way that [any .NET development tool] is affiliated with Microsoft. -- Peter Boughton (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This is quite a stretched analogy, though Microsoft's .Net resources are indeed not independent from .Net frameworks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With those thoughts in mind dimitry I think pretty much the majority of CFML, php, java, groovy and ruby programming framework references should be removed from Wikipedia as only 1% off them have external references that do not concern their audience or language focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmajano (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not very comfortable with connotation that this would make a priori negative impact on Wikipedia. BTW, we are generally expected to avoid arguments about other articles in AfD discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated my keep preference, but I wanted to add some additional links here to support the notability of the ColdBox Framework for ColdFusion. I feel these sources represent reliable second or third party information pertaining to the existence, features, and use of the framework. I realize some of them might appear less reliable than others, but I've included them based on the expert reputation of the author or the reputation of the publishing site. I hoping the assertion of notability can be cumulative, meaning a single reference might not hold a lot of weight, but each one can add some value to the total. Please note none of these references are first party to avoid any self-promotion, and some of them are from resources outside of the CF world. I am open to discussion and feedback on these. I think many of them should be added to the main article to improve its sourcing. (I had to remove several links from DZone-- apparently that site has been blacklisted) ~Brad Wood

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has been modified according to standards with even more external sources attached and all wording of self-promotion removed. I find no cause for deletion according to the stated article. — Lmajano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I must agree. I see both a large list of outside verifiable sources and removal of any self-promotion and don't see any reason now for removing this article. Coldbox is from development point of view probably the most known and sophisticated MVC framework for coldfusion. The article is pure understatement. Everything written is verifieable anyway. No reason to remove this article. — 77.56.125.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I agree that this article should be kept. I hope the links provided above satisfy the requirement. - Aaron Greenlee — 24.92.171.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

There are over 1500 pieces of software for CFML available in assorted pockets of the Internet. Most of those, nobody (except their author) cares about - there are maybe two dozen of them that CF devs generally pay attention to. ColdBox is one of those <2% of CFML software packages where you will not get a "what's that" when you mention it to the average CFML developer.

The ColdBox article is (still) not very encylopedic, but the software is well known (amongst those for whom it is meaningful for it to be known) and used by a range of companies, so the article should be kept and fixed - not deleted.

(I have no affiliation with ColdBox/Ortus and don't use the framework.)

-- Peter Boughton (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, it's better not to remove other people's comments. Your edit history does in fact resemble an SPA- which is perfectly okay as long as you take care to avoid COI. It looks like consensus is going your way, in either event. --Robert Keiden (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of clarity, what I removed was not a "comment" but the SPA template text, because stating "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" is (at best) misleading. All except two of my edits are outside this topic. I have no COI because I have no interest/affiliation with ColdBox at all. I'm here because it is an article which falls within my area of expertise. As per WP:SPATG, editing within a single broad topic does not identify a single-purpose account. -- Peter Boughton (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage of ColdBox in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - this fails WP:GNG. The sources linked above in the "keep" votes don't look like they qualify as "reliable" as defined in WP:IRS, and the sources in the article don't look any better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for weighing in on this article. Could you elaborate more on the reliability of the sources please? WP:IRS does state, "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Luckily this article doesn't claim that cold fusion is a viable alternative energy source, but rather that ColdBox is common ColdFusion MVC framework that is notable for anyone using CFML. :) While I agree some of the links may seem lightweight, they do come from some of the most prominent and respected resources in the CFML world. (with no direct affiliation to the subject) ~Brad Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.7.35 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about a selective merge to ColdFusion framework (currently redlinked)? I couldn't find anything in reliable sources, although did spot ColdBox Helps Government Rape Awareness Campaign, which could have perhaps been made more of in the media by Gencia. -- Trevj (talk) 09:11, 13 September 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.