Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DragonFire SDK


 * 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 Soft delete. Article may be restored on request by any administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

DragonFire SDK

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

From what I can see, DragonFireSDK isn't actually notable. It's not mentioned on the Google News archive, it's mentioned very briefly in one or two books, and the only non-press release mention I can find on Google is Dr Dobbs' recommendation, which I don't think counts as "notable" on its own. &mdash;ajf (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are six citations in the article:


 * A listicle on a non-obviously notable tech site (I don't think this is notable)
 * A press release (invalid, obviously)
 * Two primary sources (invalid for notability, only verifiability)
 * Dr. Dobbs Jolt Award post (is this notable?)
 * A review on someone's blog (not notable)

So, they don't really make it seem notable. &mdash;ajf (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Smuckola had some thoughts on this at Talk:DragonFire_SDK which they decided not to post here, for whatever reason. &mdash;ajf (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 22:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:06, 20 March 2015 (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.