Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonite (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 delete. Already G11 deleted. (non-admin closure) Viztor (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Masonite (web framework)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Put your readme on github. This framwork has no source reporting it besides few package repos disguised as reliable sources even though anyone can publish on them. As a programmer myself, this maybe something remarkable, but not now. It only released its first stable version two months ago. It would at least take a year before it reach maturity. Viztor (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing in the first comment is true. The project is well over 1 year old and had a stable release way more than 2 months ago. The first stable release was January of 2018. Thats over a year ago it went into 1.x. In fact, Masonite is on a 2.x release cycle. The project has over 160k installs. The project has over 600 pages of documentation for it. Within the next month, the project has almost 1000 stars on Github which is no small feat. This will put Masonite into the .01% of repositories with over 1000 stars. Its more than a mature web framework and people will be looking for more information on it.

Masonite's next release of version 2.2 is also a Long Term Support release so businesses can see the commitment to the project and is currently in conversation about several businesses sponsoring development of the project. The project also does have a readme on its GitHub page | Readme and also does have sources other than other repositories: | CodingForEntreprenuers: It was also on this podcast: | python.__init__ and featured and accepted on this podcast as well: | ChangeLog] along with several large newsletters such as RealPython, Anker Gupta featured it on | import python Also featured on | PycodersWeekly and talked about by | Dan Bader and many more times featured on Twitter by other large players on the industry with over 50k+ followers. I am also currently in a contract signed book deal writing "The Definitive Guide to Masonite" with | Apress. There are also several articles from the original author of the project on | dev.to here --josephmancuso (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Masonite Framework. already has readme file, not even that this is one of the active projects on GitHub, on the time writing this, the last commit was 10 hours ago. It has a stable version 2.0 for almost year now, along with 2.1 major release and Masonite is working on 2.2 LTS release this week, not even that Masonite has 120+ releases including major and minor releases so far. As a programmer myself, I have used Masonite in production for Websiteopedia. Masonite is young, mature and remarkable at the same time, last but not least, check Pageview Analysis for Masonite Framework page on Wikipedia --vaibhavmule (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Masonite page shouldn't be deleted, it is a Mature framework and the comment of the user just shows that he do not even opened the docs or the Github page of Masonite. Is a awesome project and the wiki page should be improved, not deleted. --Rfschubert (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh plz, github and package repos are not reliable source, you know better. I've already said it is probably a good framework. However, unless some reliable sources report on it, we can not include it. This is not the place to promo good new frameworks, that's just OR or PROMO. BTW, it has less than one thousand stars, that just proves the point, it is too new and not popular, let alone for mass deployment. Viztor (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, I don't know why I'm arguing with Rfschubert, he's the author, and I've checked history for the above accounts who voted keep, and it is clear to me what he doing, though I will require assist for verification. Viztor (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2019 (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.