Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZK Framework (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 April 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Please remember to bold comment once in the future. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZK Framework

Non notable Flaming Grunt 08:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I moved the article to ZK (framework) since the name of this framework is "ZK", not "ZK Framework". This may prove important when looking for sources to cite. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When we designed our current application, we included ZK, GWT and RAP to our evaluation list for Ajax frameworks. I found this article useful, especially introduction and further links. ZK is a top project on sourceforge whatever that means. I'm not a wiki dogmatist and not really interested in relevance criteria, but I've seen so many articles on wikipedia that are more relevant but incomplete and badly written. I use wikipedia for research on new topics to get articles like this one. Beanformer 09:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanformer (talk • contribs) — Beanformer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - It's not notable. That's it. It doesn't meet the criteria specified in WP:NOTE - read it. Flaming Grunt 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Waiting for delete... no response in the last 5 days, come on - pick up the pace please. Flaming Grunt 10:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GWT is notable enough to be given it's own article, and ZK is more widely used (in my circles of development). It is managed by a very active community, and provides a feature set beyond that of GWT (i.e. IDE integration with both Eclipse and NetBeans). A Wikipedia article is merited in my opinion. In addition to it's technical merit, ZK is also notable for it's completeness and ground-breaking functionality. - Thanks InfoSec812— InfoSec812 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - I've found the article very useful. When I've to choose some kind of software I always read the related Wikipedia page and Zk worth an article. Is a largely used framework and has a very active community. - Thanks l.visconti —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC). — l.visconti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weakest of Weak Keeps, was not able to find any substantial independent coverage of this framework, but being the Sourceforge project of the month might just push it over the notability line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet the notability guidelines by proving its notablility with reliable sources. The keep votes are not valid arguments. Just because something is WP:USEFUL doesn't mean it should have an article. Spiesr (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party reliable sources. The SPA keeps above are all not valid.16x9 (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (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.