Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squatting (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. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squatting (framework)

(previously prod - notability still not asserted but prod was removed).

Non-notable software/package; makes no claims to notability, google search finds nothing close to a reliable source. Blowdart | ^talk 12:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:V and WP:N - No major 3rd party news coverage. References are blogs, google groups, etc. At present, this product is pretty much an unknown, a fledgling library of programming functions with no following. Programming technique of using a code library (with other development products) is common place. - DustyRain (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - In reply to your points... 1) re: "No major 3rd party news coverage" & "At present, this product is pretty much an unknown" - All true. If I knew beforehand that these are essential requirements for a Wikipedia entry then I would probably have made this entry a bit further in the future. So please forgive me if I've wasted anybody's time over this. 2) re: "a fledgling library of programming functions" - No it is a framework as defined by Wikipedia itself at Software_framework. Squatting uses Inversion_of_control has it calls the user program where as a library would be called by the user program. This distinction means it does fall in line with the other frameworks mentioned. 3) re: "...with no following". Yes it is new and if it needs to reach a critical mass before it can become notable then yes unfortunately it as not reached this level yet. 4) re: "Programming technique of using a code library (with other development products) is common place" - Transposing your question to it being a framework instead and actually it doesn't appear to be common place. I cannot find any clear example that any other web framework as this feature. The closest I found on web is this link... http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/1.2.x/reference/webintegration.html ... however Spring (I believe) is a application framework and not a web framework. So this "Squatting" feature is certainly "unusual"... perhaps even "unique". Is this enough to make it "notable" in Wikipedia eyes? Draegtun (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have updated article with more information while this "non-notable" request was put in.... hopefully now it meets any requirements. If not then I'm not sure why Camping framework (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camping_(microframework) entry succeeds where as this Squatting entry doesn't? The Squatting entry itself does actually (now) contain more detail & info that its Camping (counterpart). As for Google search.. Squatting is a relatively new thing but it is growing and like Camping is notablly different than your normal type of web framework (also check out WebPy for Python for something similar) and so it is "notable" in the Perl & programming world (IMHO) and deserves an entry here while it grows (Note... I originally added Squatting entry because I came across it on the Wikipedia list of frameworks but the link was this undefined page). PS. I'm still new to Wikipedia entries so forgive me for not entering "objection" in correct place! Draegtun

comment OK so; the page needs to meet the WP:Note notability guidelines which it doesn't. Using another page's existence isn't, unfortunately a valid reason. The camping framework page probably isn't notable either; but it is established and links to a conference presentation on it; which is a vague indication of notability. The perl monks discussion is basically an announcement rather than any proof that your(?) software is notable enough for inclusion. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camping was a closest example because its notable resemblance & inspiration. There are many other frameworks which have entries on Wikipedia (I link to Catalyst in the Squatting entry) which Squatting sit alongside (or on top off!). Doing quick google on "squatting +perl +framework" provides of 18,300 hits... so there as already been quite a bit of traffic on it. I think both Camping & Squatting are notable for them being Web Microframeworks and therefore both deserve entries on Wikipedia.

To clarify what maybe an important point... I am NOT the author of the software... if you go thru the Squatting mailing list (via Project Homepage on the entry) you will see that I have had multiple conversations with John Beppu the author. Also (if it helps) u can see an article about Squatting on my blog... http://draegtun.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/using-template-toolkit-with-squatting/ So my involvement with Squatting as been as a user only and hence I feel qualified (enough!) to provide an Wikipedia entry on it. - Draegtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your link to the project. A couple of things; blogs (even your own) aren't reliable sources. Now if you can find a reliable or notable source and add them that would go a long way to proving notability. If, as you say, it's a new thing, then it's highly likely it's not going to be notable. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if these clarify as notable sources... http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?web_frameworks & http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?squatting My reservations are because I added these to Perl 5 Wiki which is why I didn't include them in the Wikipedia entry. Note I have added other entries to Perl5 wiki so I'm not Squatting biased! So Squatting is notable in the Perl world and the Perl foundation is considering giving a grant to John Beppu for further Squatting development.. http://news.perlfoundation.org/2008/11/2008q4_grant_proposal_squattin.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW.. the Perl foundation grant link does clarify Squatting "notable" feature that it can be mounted on top of any web framework (Beppu originally mentioned it could even be mounted onto PHP... ie. different language). Draegtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would help if I added link! This is where Squatting proposal was accepted in 2008 Q3 grants but not funded and is now in the 2008 Q4 round of proposals. So acceptance of proposal does show "some" signs of it being notable? http://news.perlfoundation.org/2008/08/2008q3_grants_results.html - Draegtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draegtun (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the reference to http://news.perlfoundation.org/2008/08/2008q3_grants_results.html above: Acceptance of a proposal to be funded is not related to notability. As well, the funding request was denied. Tough luck but this is not yet worthy. - DustyRain (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No appropriate references, wholly unencyclopedic in tone. Bongo matic 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. re "No appropriate references" - I haven't included the Perl5 Wiki or The_Perl_Foundation references in the article because I believe they're not encyclopedic to what Squatting does. I can if this is required. re "wholly unencyclopedic in tone"? - Article written using Camping (microframework) article as a guide. My intention of to bring it more inline with how the Catalyst (software) article is written. If neither of these are appropriate then could u provide me with a reference to writing this in an "encyclopedic" style Draegtun (talk) 19:03, 17 November 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.