Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Induction 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. Author concurs that article is premature as the subject has not received significant external coverage in reliable sources. WP:Crystal applies. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Induction Framework

Contested speedy. I have no knowledge of the subject. Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion is appropriate according to WP:WEB. There are no reliable external sources cited in the article. In time, "induction framework" may become notable, but the article should not be created until then. Sam (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, thanks for your observations. I respectfully disagree that the Induction Framework article qualifies for deletion as per WP:WEB. The article does not qualify by WP:WEB:Criteria 3, since the Induction software framework is independently distributed by Google Code at [1]. The primary reference I used to write the article was the Induction project's official website. That said, this is my first article and I will be more than happy to edit the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

If the consensus is unequivocally that the article is not notable I will humbly defer, but I would really like a better explanation as to why, since as I alluded previously (in the article's talk page) Wikipedia has over 100 such articles in [Category:Web application frameworks] for Induction-like projects. If this article is deleted what is a reasonable explanation for an arguable bias?

I routinely come to Wikipedia to peruse such categories for encyclopedic coverage on current projects. My most recent example is using Wikipedia to research lightweight markup languages. Based on the excellent Wikipedia article I choose the Textile markup language for a project. My point is that Wikipedia is a source for engineers researching the state-of-the-art. Giving open-source projects, such as Induction, the benefit of the notability doubt I sincerely think enhances Wikipedia.

Bluecarbon (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluecarbon. I don't think WP:WEB3 is relevant here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think anyone can set up a project at [2], so this seems to fall into the exception of "trivial distribution".

My understanding is that, wikipedia is not supposed to support a collection of all the latest open source projects. I don't think this falls within its aims. (Perhaps some other articles should also be deleted.) People arriving at a wikipedia article should be able to feel confident about its notability. If you disagree, you should try to argue your point at the discussion page of WP:WEB. Or you could start your own wiki for open source projects, if there is not one already. I expect that, sooner or later, induction-framework will get some positive press in a "reliable source", and then it might be appropriate to reinstate this article. Sam (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. Your suggestion that the article be deleted until the Induction Framework gets more "positive press" is reasonable. I will not further contest the article's proposed deletion. Bluecarbon (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (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.