Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohana (web framework)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Kohana (web framework)
Previous AfD for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article fails the general notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Very few reliable secondary sources exist discussing Kohana, and sources offered on the talk page are not reliable. All sources used in the article are self-published by the people working on the framework. Sources found generally include blog posts, forum posts, wiki articles, and self-published news articles as primary sources. While it appears the framework is gaining popularity with Gallery and osQuantum, there simply isn't a lot of coverage for the framework yet. Perhaps in the future Kohana will become notable, but as it stands I do not believe it warrants an article. Odie5533 (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment People seem to really be coming out of the woodwork for this framework. Please read WP:RS and WP:N (at least glance over them) and feel free to contribute to the discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:AGF and WP::COI. You seem to be verging close to the line on this one :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It seems to be discussed often around the php community, see    : just a random few of many ghits coming out. -- Cycl o pia  -  talk  13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources: first one is a self-published blog, tutsplus seems to publish paid user content with no editorial policy, beyondcoding has no list of editors anywhere and appears to be a self-published blogs, and everything on devreview appears to be posted anonymously, no editorial policy, no list of editors, I can't even say for sure how content gets on the site. Perhaps Kohana is making its way around the PHP blog community, this still doesn't constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The subject simply is not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept is: what does it mean "notability"? It seems that today WP deems as non-notable everything that has not been thoroughly reviewed by formal RS: however context is everything. In the context of software like a PHP framework, where most discussion is made online by mean of blogs, forums, etc., the coverage by formally RS has little to do with the actual notability of the subject in its real spirit: the fact that it is something that is used, debated and discussed by people, in my opinion makes it notable. Remember that WP:GNG is a guideline: it tells us what it is likely to be notable but not what it is non-notable. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment to Errant below. It discusses what my opinion of notability with regards to PHP frameworks is. "WP deems as non-notable everything that has not been thoroughly reviewed by formal RS" yes, that's kind of the idea. I realize WP:N is just a guideline, and I'm more than willing to hear a special case, but this doesn't seem to be one. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it, and I respectfully disagree. Our notability concepts should be in line with common sense and what appears reasonable, not on blindly applying guidelines even when they do not provide reasonable solutions. Kohana seems to be widely used and vibrantly discussed by unrelated third parties, and as such it is notable in the meaning that it is not an irrelevant trivia. As such we should think twice before throwing almost irreversibly the article into oblivion. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never blindly apply guidelines; I consider each case carefully. The question here is not whether or not people use the framework, but whether or not the framework is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. AfD is not remotely "throwing almost irreversibly the article into oblivion". As I mentioned to neovive below, WP:userfy and WP:DRV exist. If the framework becomes notable in the future, as is suspected, it can easily be restored exactly how it was before. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - note first I am a Kohana user as well as an old time Wikipedia contributor. Take that as needed. However....
 * note: Part of the rationale for deletion posted by Odie5533 on the talk page is lack of Google hits. Whilst this is a reasonable judge for articles it was never, in my time at least, considered as a valid reason for deletion
 * The CakePHP framework article also contains only links to sites created by the CakePHP community (and at that only 2 other sites beside the official CakePHP site). The same issues exist for that article as this one (I realise that is not a good "keep" argument - but it is worth pointing out). The vast number of other articles on PHP frameworks have the precise same problem; removing all of them does seem an odd manoeuver. However if the decision on Kohana is the delete then we should look at them very closely.
 * Kohana is being used by a large, old, stable and very notable PHP project called Gallery (a photo gallery application) as the basis for it's upcoming release. This counts as reliable secondary sources and should go some way to establish notability.
 * For the record the Nettuts site is a pay-for-tutorials site (it's part of the Theme Forest portfolio). They run the free articles as a sideline / news section - the editors name is easily found on the site. They heavily edit content - I have written for and submitted content to their sites before with some of it declined. They have a strong notability policy, stronger than here; if it appears on the site then they consider it notable. However with that said it is notable for the PHP community - which might apply or not.
 * I have some other secondary sourcing - from oreilly and Mozilla nonetheless. The Google Breakpad and Socorro projects (which actually AFAIK handl all the mozilla crash reporting) uses Kohana for some sections. Sourcing:
 * Also could the nominator please clarify what exactly he/she feels is required for notability in this field. I note this because the general idea (again in my time) was that the notability rules where designed to be vague so a consensus on what denotes notable could be established individually in each field. Things like news articles etc. are unlikely to ever exist for articles in this field (PHP frameworks), for example (simply because of the context) - so secondary sourcing from that area is unlikely for any of the articles. On the other hand
 * --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am completely against the use of Google Hits to determine if a subject is notable. I have not mentioned Google Hits at all regarding Kohana, so I'm not sure why you think I'm basing my support for the deletion on this. The CakePHP article, and many other articles for that matter, have problems with not using reliable sources. However, the question at hand is whether or not the subject has been covered by reliable sources rather than whether or not the article on the subject is using reliable sources. I do not think the article should be deleted because it isn't using reliable sources; I think it should be deleted because the subject is not notable. The use in Gallery counts for something, but not quite enough in my opinion. And that's a primary source, not a secondary one. Plus it's self published. I fully believe Gallery uses Kohana, but we don't have any reliable secondary sources that confirm this. If Nettuts does indeed have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, then it would be considered reliable. Based on the evidence I've seen, I am inclined to say it does not have such a reputation. I would, however, be more than willing to reconsider if new evidence were presented. This is, however, a moot point as it would constitute only a single source and not be considered "significant coverage". As the nominator, my thoughts on what is required for notability Wikipedia-wise within the PHP sector (i.e. not what is notable within the PHP community, but what from the PHP community is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia) would include: Book(s) published on the use of the framework, books on teaching PHP which use the framework, body of academic research analyzing the framework, developer magazines publishing news, tips, etc on the framework, reputable news websites publishing reviews, analysis, tips, news, etc on the framework. A pattern of wide recognition, commentary, and analysis on the framework would be, in my opinion, required for the framework to be notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies i misread the thread on the talk page and attributed the google comments to you,. Ignore that then. Plus it's self published - that is irrelevant in this context. It is a secondary source of the notability of Kohana but a primary source for the fact it is being used (there is a distinction; this was argued over many times before). As this is a framework a vast number of sites probably use it - but there will be little or no stats or data on that. There are very few secondary sources for CakePHP being used to create sites for example. All of the elements you list will not exist for any PHP frameworks - or will exist in tiny numbers. If anything (as noted below) Kohana is most likely to have reference material in that area over any other framework in the near future. Any comments on the mozilla stuff? That is highly notable. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the framework is currently being used, or the extent of its use, is not the problem; the problem is that there does not exist a body of coverage in reliable secondary sources discussing the framework. Thus primary sources supporting its use are not supporting its notability. CakePHP has loads of books and journal articles and reviews . Notability does not exist for most PHP frameworks, this is true, and for those that notability does exist they should have articles. If, however, the framework does not meet the threshold for inclusion as outlined in the notability guidelines, it should be deleted. For the Mozilla powerpoint presentation, this is again a primary source supporting the use of the framework, not a secondary source supporting the notability of it. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The use in osCommerce and Gallery *are* secondary sources of *notability* (as has been discussed many many times). They are *primary* sources of Kohana's use within those projects. I feel that is an important distinction.
 * I'd also like to point out that the tagging on Stackoverflow is probably a fair example of notability, and yes, yes I know it is arguably not a reliable source etc however in the programming / development community it is a very good marker.
 * However I have a secondary source for Kohana's use in osCommerce. The scale of that project, along with the gallery stuff, should provide enough notability - http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/solutions/article.php/3826911 http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/essentials/shopping_carts/article.php/3842506
 * BTW the note at the top has potential to bias the closing admins decision. As there is currently no comments here to which it applies it should probably go :) Finally I disagree with your comments on what constitutes notability. I would judge PHP frameworks are notable on their pervasiveness and awareness within the community. Kohana has quite a lot of awareness which, as pointed out, exists within discussion boards and blogs.  -Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The use in osQunatum and Gallery is supporting the use of the software. "Coverage in reliable secondary sources" would support the notability. StackOverflow is as good for determining notability as gHits, or Titter, or Digg. They are all good markers of something, but not notability. ecommerce-guide appears reliable, however, one source hardly constitutes significant coverage and the articles present only brief and trivial coverage of the framework, but do support the framework's use in osQuantum. Perhaps they should be used on the osQuantum/Commerce page. If Kohana truly was notable within the PHP community, shouldn't the PHP community's reliable publications, academic researchers, and book publishers be reviewing it? If the answer is that they will, that hits on WP:CRYSTALBALL. The note at the top is not for admins, it is for newcomers to deletion discussions. I can not be sure it applies to anyone here, I don't know how many deletion discussions everyone has participated in. Thus, it's there just in case so people can review the pertinent guidelines while participating in discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that usage === notability within this context. Specifically usage in large, notable projects. reliable publications, academic researchers - none of this really exists for the PHP community (which is heavily fractured and divided anyway; all the publications having favourites, affiliates etc.), that which do exist will not really review or discuss frameworks. Indeed I cant think of a general programming or PHP specific news site anywhere on the net that WP would consider notable :) Stackoverflow is, yes, similar to gHits et all in terms of applicability; BUT it is one of the best markers in the community - far better than books/articles to a point. In terms of book publishers only really O'Reilly is big enough to be applicable for WP (there are a couple of independents and smaller publishers but I dont see many books by them on the subject of frameworks). They have not written about Kohana but that is not unusual - regardless of notability most of the Books O'Reilly publishes are written by community members. Kohana guys could probably write a book and get it published by O'Reilly. Indeed this is fairly standard for the programming framework book genre (unless your talking super-large like Cake or Rails). There have been at least 2 .net printed articles I know of discussing Kohana. They are not online though so probably don't count (I cant remember) - but if they do then it might be applicable (here in the UK .net would be the de-facto web developers magazine).
 * In terms of the note it is generally acceptable to post it when "voting" is taking place and new users are making wild comments left right and center. In the past single use or "for the moment" accounts have been ignored by closing admins biased by the note - Im only commenting because we *are* having discussions here and not blindly voting :D
 * Anyway I do feel like this comes down to a definition of notability in the sub-field. I would argue that as a PHP programmer that my view is probably most "correct" - however I am also biased by being a fan of Kohana. I would argue heavily that in this area blogging and sites like SO are as important judges of notability than the other elements you listed. Anything you might consider secondary sourced news sites, for example, we could probably get articles posted too (or by) before the end of the week to establish notability (and I know I and others could write for magazines). That is how the field works :) in a very fickle manner. :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Packt puts out loads of PHP framework books, Apress put out a CakePHP book (among other platforms, and actually 2 books on CakePHP), Friends of ED has books which discuss CakePHP and other frameworks, Wiley has book on CodeIgniter, Dreamtech Press has a book on Zend. There's lots of book publishers out there, and lots of books on PHP platforms. I haven't even mentioned foreign books. It's not just books though, there's lot of reliable resources on other PHP frameworks, just not for Kohana. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

--neovive 9 October 2009 — neovive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - It should also be noted that version 3 of KohanaPHP was very recently released with support for the Presentation-abstraction-control (HMVC) design pattern. The new website and documentation will be available shortly.  Since Kohana is one of the few PHP frameworks supporting the HMVC design pattern, it will likely generate a lot of academic interest in the form of magazine articles and reviews.  If possible, the deletion discussion should be postponed until after the new website for Kohana version 3 is available and the community takes note of the new HMVC support.  A few notable sources:
 * The Gallery3 project explains why they chose to rebuild the project using KohanaPHP: link
 * StackOverflow questions tagged with Kohana link
 * A jobsite dedicated to companies hiring people with KohanaPHP experience: link.
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please base your opinion on the subject as it is, and not speculate what it will be. If you are right and the framework becomes notable in the future, WP:DRV can easily bring back the full article exactly as it was before it was deleted. Or you could wp:userfy a copy and work on it, recreating the page when it becomes notable. The sources you've posted are not reliable secondary sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's not notable. As precedent, take a look at this Articles for deletion/PRADO; I was for keeping that article but it was deleted. Today, the same reasons do apply to Kohana, so for the same reasons it should be deleted. Rather PRADO has more hits on Google than Kohana and it did win the Zend PHP5 contest. It's a matter of coherence and consistency, when you choose a policy you have to follow it. Ekerazha (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a slightly less related but nonetheless relevant precedent, see Articles for deletion/Parchive, which even survived deletion review, and it is probably even less sourced than Kohana. What happened to PRADO is absolutely despicable. -- Cycl o pia  -  talk  10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the !votes were keep and the only delete from Miami did not help out the discussion. I hate comments like that. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2009 (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.