Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Framework One

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. Without prejudice for an early recreation, if reliable sources are available. Wifione ^Message 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Framework One

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Framework One (FW/1) is one of the most popular MVC frameworks for CFML (ColdFusion Markup Language) with nearly 700 developers on the mailing list. It seems that for notability, the requirement is to find references from places other than the author (me) or the project. Is that correct? Would adding links to talks about FW/1 given at conferences around the world, and blog postings, by other developers contribute to notability? Seancorfield (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Seancorfield, sources need to meet WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability - I would say blogs aren't generally accepted. The sources would need to show that it meets WP:NOTABILITY, in particular WP:ORG and WP:GNG. For further advice, you could post at WP:Wikiproject Notability asking for assistance. We generally discourage people from writing about themselves and their products, but there's no outright ban. Good luck. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd say most of the CFML frameworks would fail the notability criteria then since outside of blogs and conference talks I don't think any of them get discussed or reviewed (and most of the CFML frameworks have pages on Wikipedia, e.g., ColdBox_Platform and ColdFusion_on_Wheels) - and I wouldn't consider Wikipedia the right place to look for information about any of them to be honest. I let the FW/1 community know about the potential deletion of the page and it's up to them whether they update the content with notable sources at this point. Thank you for the clarification Seancorfield (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not enough uptake yet to garner coverage in third-party sources. No prejudice wrt recreating once it has picked up some notoriety. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2014 (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.