Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRADO (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 keep.  Sandstein  14:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

PRADO (framework)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. This article is blatantly promotional and has literally zero third-party sources. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The official documentation has too many typos. There are no RS at all. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep - I'm seeing lots of use and discussion of PRADO in academic sources, which suggests to me that this framework meets WP:GNG. PRADO is referred to in this computer science education paper (the strongest source I found) as one of "the top six PHP frameworks". In this conference paper, PRADO is referred to as "widely used" (Google translate) and compared to another framework. It is discussed as a framework for building interactive tools  and in two graduate theses (maybe, hard to tell if the second one is more of a technical report).   Suriname0 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: go ahead and improve the article (or list these sources on the talk page), if you believe these sources are reliable and in-depth. After taking a cursory look at them, I can see only source 1 (ACM) being useful for an article. I think, all other sources either convey trivia information or are not reliable or not in-depth. I'm not sure there is enough to build an article on. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Anton.bersh, thanks for your comment but I'm a little confused. My reading of your nomination was for WP:DEL-REASONs (4) and (8). (Do I have that right?)  I think neither holds here. First, the article isn't overly promotional and contains encyclopedic content; I removed the worst of the excesses from the history section, although that Features section probably needs to go in its entirety.  Second, the subject does seem to have reliable sources: I think [1] and [2] are both reliable, independent, significant coverage, which meets WP:GNG.  Finally, I'll mention that I wasn't up to date on the notability standards used for software, but it seems to me that these sources indicates that PRADO meets the first two notability standards at WP:NSOFTWARE (either would be sufficient to establish notability, so I've updated my Keep vote to drop the "keep").  So for which reason do you want the article deleted? I don't know which deletion reason "I'm not sure there's enough to build an article on" refers to. (It's okay if the article is "too short" after removing the unencyclopedic content...) Thanks for the help! Suriname0 (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Suriname0, I believe the article in its present state is not suitable for Wikipedia for the reason 4 ("Advertising"). Article's longest section, "Features" is basically a promotonal bullet point listing. It's suitable for a project website but is probably not useful for an encyclopedia reader. Also, this section has no reliable sources at all. Fortunatelly, this point can be trivially solved by removing the whole section (unless there are sources). I try to calibrate my definition of what is a reliable in-depth source based on what community considers reliable and in-depth. I remember helping out with an article which had more academic sources than Prado, but was deleted for notability. Without going into much detail (because it would be WP:OTHER), I initially voted "delete" and then changed my vote based on provided sources and tried to improve the article, but improvements were not sufficient for the article to stay. That article AfD was at Articles for deletion/Genozip. If you think this article can be improved to become at least a stub, go ahead and implement the edits. I'm just skeptical that the provided sources would be sufficient for even a stub. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Anton.bersh, I made some edits and added multiple sources. But, I'll note that making these changes is not a requirement for an article to make it out of AfD: merely the existence of multiple independent, repliable, in-depth sources is sufficient (assuming one of the other criteria do not apply). Further, quoting WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If you were concerned about the Features section, I would encourage you to be WP:BOLD and simply implement that change yourself, rather than nominating the article for AfD and encouraging others to make those changes. Suriname0 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further evaluation of the substantiveness of the presented sources would be helpful in determining consensus
 * Keep, enough academic usage to be notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - For new participants, they key references to evaluate (which are in the article) are these three:  Suriname0 (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have no idea how this framework got a cover story in Linux Magazine, but that's a very strong showing for just some web framework. Add to that some sort of coverage from other languages, perhaps in an education context, and it looks notable to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is established by the three sources listed above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:58, 14 August 2021 (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.