Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CubicWeb


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

CubicWeb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minimal evidence of notability for this web application framework. The papers and conference talks relating to CubicWeb all seem to have been created or co-created by employees of Logilab, the makers of CubicWeb. As far as notable third-party mentions of CubicWeb, all I could find was this 2011 InfoWorld article, which is not currently included in the Wikipedia article. It does provide some evidence of notability, but I don't think it's enough. Yaron K. (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and searches have found nothing better at all, article shows no convincing signs. SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below. North America1000 02:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (seems to be reasonably reliable)
 * (seems to be reasonably reliable)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:43, 25 June 2016 (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.