Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyButStrong

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TinyButStrong

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

Web template system with no asssertion of coverage in reliable third-party sources, and all I could find were forums, press releases, and false positives. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really nothing on this on the web, barring the product's own self-publicity page. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I'm the submitter of the article). Here are some reliable sources:
- a solution for SugareCRM,

- an article in a French magazine,

- a complete solution based on TinyButStrong,

- a short Google view of sites using TBS (sites with errors and which does not use the Silent Mode),

- referenced by PHP speakers in Canada, cited in pro books.

- a [technical document] about Dynamic Content,

- a Tutorial by a famous [French Developer Site]

- a solution for creating [OpenOffice documents under Symfony],

Parchemin (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks better: just had a look around your suggested links. I'm happy to be converted. Will you add these links to the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick said: " Will you add these links to the article?". The French article is not in Engish, the Google view is interesting not good for the listed sites, a reference about PhpMotion could be a kind of add. I think I will maintain the article and add other references on the way.Parchemin (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That wasn't the basis for the nomination. The comment you are responding to is not from the nominator. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable source availability listed by user Parchemin above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBS: I use it every day... I'm a long-time (6 or 7 years) TBS developer and a longer time (15 years) PHP developer who has become 100% committed to using the TinyButStrong template engine - for everything. Two inter-related reasons for this: (1) easy to use for developing sophisticated, web based, database driven applications and (2) it keeps my clients from being locked into one vendor for both their 'look and feel' and their PHP programming. Tomhenry151 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of the sources offered above, only the PHP Magazine represents a reliable source to establish notability. The others do not. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That wasn't the basis for the nomination. The comment you are posting is about Notability while the nominator claims "no assertion of coverage". This is not the same thing. You are discussing about TinyButStrong sort of fame, while the discussion is about TBS reality. The sources offered are proofs that reliable third-parties really know and use TBS. The best proof among them is the Google search, in my opinion. Parchemin (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complement: I've added three new third-party sources in the list above.Parchemin (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google translation of the French magazine shows this is in fact significant coverage. It is a notable thing, surely covered in places that talk about this, most of which don't have Google news search indexing them, so its hard to find them. Dream Focus 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 4 October 2011 (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.