Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusebox (programming)

: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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

=[[Fusebox (programming)]]=

:{{la|Fusebox (programming)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fusebox_(programming) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Fusebox (programming)}})

This article has not any reliable source to indicating its notability. –ebraminiotalk 07:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. Fusebox is arguably the most notable of all CF frameworks - the article needs to be fixed, not deleted.

    I notice ebraminio is putting AFDs on several PHP framework articles, and agree that the PHP port of Fusebox is probably not notable enough for its own article, but it is exactly that - a port of the CFML Fusebox framework - and, as I've said above, that original version is definitely notable.

    Peter Boughton (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I am not just putting PHP frameworks on AfD. I am checking this list for non-notable articles and I supposed that this article is not notable enough. –ebraminiotalk 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • keep This is an unimportant web app framework for an obsolete coding language. That said, for the language concerned, ColdFusion, this was (and probably still is) the premier framework. It was important within the ColdFusion world, appeared early in the history of such things and has a long, stable and documented history since. ColdFusion is far from being a language I would recommend to anyone, but within WP's definitions of notability, notability of such things are not transitory and so the article should be kept.

    It would be nice to see it expanded with some sources before all the old CF hackers are dead and buried though. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • ColdFusion is not an obsolete language, version 10 was released in May of this year. Andy is apparently confused. --SubSeven (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: all the sources I could find on topic are not independent (at best they are ColdFusion-centered, which is a very narrow scope, leaving the Notability guideline's connotation of deferring the decision of notability to independent reliable sources unmet). The claim of historic (and probably current) significance of this title would save the article, but only if it is itself made in reliable source independent of topic, not by Wikipedia editors or sources that focus on ColfFusion and thus have substantial bias towards mention of related topics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "at best they are ColdFusion-centered"

    What utter nonsense! It's a framework for ColdFusion, with a later port to PHP. What else would you expect them to be centred on? That's like deleting jUnit "because it goes on about Java too much".Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I would expect general computing sources with no bias towards ColdFusion and its subtopics (eg. ZDNet, DeveloperWorks, etc.). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a misapplication of the independence clause of WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • There seem to be entire books devoted specifically to this (such as {{ISBN|9780735712690}} and {{ISBN|9780972078634}}, to pick but two) and more books that are about larger subjects but that devote entire chapters to this (chapter 4, 70 pages, in {{ISBN|9780782140293}}) or lengthy discussions within chapters (pages 62 to 67 of {{ISBN|9780735713048}}). Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - there seem to be adequate independent sources, per our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

: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.