Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nette Framework (3rd nomination)


 * 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 keep. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nette Framework
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sourced only by its own website & github repository. No evidence that it's notable. It's G4 eligible, but this version has survived several years already. AFD is in deference to its age. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep - This article from SitePoint gives it significant coverage from a non-primary source. It also shows that according to a 2015 survey, it was the third most popular product of its type. I found a few other articles dealing with Nette and it even gets mentioned in scientific papers. There's also paid courses available for developers who want to use Nette. I'm gonna say that it's quite notable and the act that only primary sources are used in the article is an oversight on the part of the editor who wrote it and doesn't reflect on the actual notability of the product. PraiseVivec talk) 13:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: I see 's great find but right now, this article has nothing worth keeping. It needs a full rewriting, so WP:TNT. No prejudice against userifying it. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per the sources and rationale cited above, and I don't see the point of deleting and recreating -- it's only got a couple of sentences in the lede, and the entire rest of the article is a list of components/versioning history. It is unfortunate that half of the refs are to new version releases, but I don't see how that justifies WP:TNT when the bad sections can just be removed to leave a serviceable stub. { $\mathbb{JPG}$ } 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case you have replace everything: the bad sections, the lede, and the sources. Plus, contributors who contributed the bad contents get credit for the article. I wouldn't have minded if this credit was not in the form of copyright-related obligations. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:46, 9 October 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.