Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QCubed


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

QCubed

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

Blatant advertising? Cssiitcic (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be. Definitely too technical for a general audience.  Delete in present form as possible spam. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're just trying to get some objective information about the framework in. There's a very similar article about competing frameworks - CakePHP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CakePHP). -- alex94040, QCubed core contributor.
 * QCubed is a PHP5 framework. It's a fork of the Qcodo PHP5 framework. The site is not spam. The framework is being used by several people. -- marcosdsanchez, QCubed core contributor.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.101 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as Spam. A look at the links tells all.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  19:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Appears to not meet notability requirements at this time.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete  mainly on grounds of notability. If I knew what they were talking about, I might change my mind - either way. I hope their code writing is clearer than their explanation. Article is not very spammy - just a bit too enthusiastic. Could do with more outside references. There may be some - quite a few ghits, I think Peridon (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Current position Neutral as they're translating it into English... Will wait and see. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep  now I can understand enough about what they're doing. Needs more reliable outside linking yet. Peridon (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with marcosdsanchez, now comprehensible. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the article to attempt to address these concerns. We're definitely a real product with as much right to be here as CakePHP, and while we are currently attempting to raise awareness, our userbase is already at 300+ developers -- VexedPanda, QCubed core contributor 68.145.111.83 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still find it hard to decide what the article is about. I'm not completely stupid computer-wise - I used to program in COBOL many years ago (I could even understand the MicroFocus manual...). I would like an explanation of what's what in English rather than have it all in jargon. This is a problem with articles (and manuals...) written by experts. Peridon (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still spam. Just in a prettier can.  No-one "has a right" to an article.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have made another pass on the article to make it less "geeky" and more appealing to the general audience. alex94040, qcubed core contributor. 16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.12.195 (talk)
 * The page has been cleaned up substantially, I believe the main reason this was flagged is because of the links and the way it was worded, all of these have been changed to be more informative to the general public. There are 1,000 of frameworks just like QCubed, which all have a similar wiki articles, and are even more techy than this one. Basilieus, QCubed core contributor JonKirkpatrick (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article was edited to be non-technical and almost everyone can undestand it now.  marcosdsanchez &bull; Msg  21:45, 25 January 2009


 * 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.