Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webix

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. (WP:NPASR). Of note is that the second !vote suggests topic notability, but doesn't qualify it. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webix

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

I believe Webix doesn't satisfy general notability guideline.

Coverage in multiple independent sources is required; the only substantial articles are two on InfoQ [1] [2], but both are written by the same person, thus not independent. It's also not clear whether InfoQ falls under WP:SPS, see [3]
Two cited sources [4] and [5] (now removed from article) I'd say are not substantial coverage. The 2nd is mostly a list of screenshots from the Webix website.

In addition, the article also has issues with tone and neutrality. -- intgr [talk] 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. James500 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webix was also mentioned in this article http://t3n.de/news/webix-form-builder-formular-generator-562130/. It tells about a new form generator Form Builder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelluvuus (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - Notability marginally established by [6] and [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - I know that there's room for improvement here, primarily because familiar with it myself enough to know that there are possibilities for more sources. I think it's a bit of a poor article, but not deletion worthy. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Human.v2.0: If you know there are more sources, please list them or add them to the article for future editors to build upon. -- intgr [talk] 07:53, 19 September 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 23 September 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.