Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimeFaces (2nd 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   no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Article was deleted in 2011 after AFD discussion. A new article has been created by an SPA. However, I'm nominating it for discussion rather than speedy deletion as a bit of research suggests that the product may have gained some traction in the Enterprise JavaBeans/Oracle world. I'm a comp. sci. by education but not familiar enough with this area to be able to say for sure whether or not the product has achieved notability Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * keep PrimeFaces is a commercial product, specifically a JSF (Java Server Faces) implementation. So are IceFaces and RichFaces. If were to go after articles for being commercial, then lets start with Ford and Apple. If JSF is "non notable" and too "specialised", then there are a whole bunch of articles to go after. There are many JSF implementations, but these are the three big and popular ones. Knowing precisely which is the biggest or most popular would need more market research than I can pay for, but these are the three that developers are talking about. Why is PrimeFaces being singled out?   Viam Ferream (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If I can just focus on today's debate, (a) has Java Server Faces become a frequently used product? The Java Server Faces article somewhat implies that it's withered on the vine; (b) are you telling us that PrimeFaces, IceFaces and RichFaces are the three leading implementations of Java Server Faces? (c) can you give us any more color on the breadth of use of the product? Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Has  become a frequently used product?"
 * Java is an 800 pound gorilla. Even its little finger is pretty powerful. What is the official WP mapping for "frequently used" onto WP:N? Is buggy whip deleted yet?
 * JSF is unfashionable. Thoughtworks don't like it (per the usual WP source for "Why to delete JSF"). Yet Thoughtworks are still paying attention to it, thus it is notable. JSF is the favoured tool of the deeply corporate, straight-down-the-line whatever-Sun-says J2EE web app shop. Even if the hip young things are too busy with JS-based front ends to notice them, these are the apps that probably deliver your utility bill and your credit card statement.
 * As to which of the JSF implementations are the big names, then you've only got my opinion (as a JSF developer) to go on (for my usual consultancy rates, you can get it in writing instead), but these are the three (and really only these three) that have any sizable discussion of them within the J2EE community. Maybe MyFaces too, just as its Apache's reference implementation.
 * As to "The WP article has withered", then that's much more because WP is increasingly seen as an irrelevance to the technical community, not that WP has declared that platform to be irrelevant. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Heres some typical programmer discussion about the merits of the 3: . As is entirley typical, some began with Icefaces but found it a bit slow, Primefaces looks to be the eventual leader.
 * Google Trends for the big 3 JSF
 * I'm not claiming that JSF is necessarily the way to go to build a web app, or even a Java web app. The "start up" Java world is ignoring it, even if the corporate suit-and-tie world uses it. If JSF is a notable topic though, the big three are Ice, Rich & Prime and there is some indication that PrimeFaces is the favoured leader amongst these. Viam Ferream (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - a cursory search comes up with few, if any, reliable sources, but I'll wait for a more in-depth search to decide. Both of you are barking up the wrong tree as far as notability goes. Ansh666 22:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong tree? Viam Ferream (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Article has been updated to remove any parts close to advertisement. Please review. cagatay.civici 22:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC+3)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:45, 23 September 2014 (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.