Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magritte (software)


 * 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.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Magritte (software)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions in multiple searches. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No external sources give to establish notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, a minor open-source meta-description and meta-data framework. OK, so what does it do? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - for now. I think your critique is not valid as to 'what does it do' — framework is something you can build stuff on, so that term defines what it does - ie. set of blocks to build or define aspects of your services. While smalltalk and squeak are pretty awesome and very notable developements in computing, I must say so far Magritte hasn't made any big splashes yet. I don't see notability through publicity or numbers happen. Whether it is pioneering effort - yes, its new type of approach to framework. Whether this article is a keeper. Well... I am not totally sure (notablity: 0, popularity: low, remarkable software: yes). Casimirpo (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You saying that it is remarkable software is your opinion and has nothing do with the notability guidelines. Iowateen (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it enables type of changes and developement that is not possible with other similar frameworks is what I am saying, enabling changes to the data(base)- and/or object-models of the service or app being built both 1. after the interfaces and logic dealing with that data have been set up without having to modify (all of) that logic and interfaces and 2. by people who do not have the skills to manipulate the logic and interfaces (ie. not having to program to change the model to suit the needs directed at the app/service). Ie. not subjective imo thing. Notable in technical sense. Casimirpo (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. We do not judge directly the notability by deciding that it a bit of remarkable technology.  We let the independent reliable sources decide on its remarkability to establish notability by covering the software.  If really is remarkable, the coverage will come and recreation of the article then would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Whpq. — Fatal Error 03:46, 14 July 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.