Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RailsBricks


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RailsBricks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability. Created by someone with WP:COI. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. No external sourcing - in fact, relies entirely on its own website. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added some sources and references for RailsBricks, most notably the Ruby Newsletter (30k subscribers) as well as a podcast link to episode 433 of the Ruby Rogues, an authoritative source on Ruby development. Should this page be deleted, I'd recommend that other pages citing other much less popular web frameworks such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo_(software) be also marked for deletion. 92.107.30.128 (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason of failing notability is invalid in this case as within the Ruby developers ecosystem, RailsBricks has acquired a certain amount of notability (see references). 92.107.30.128 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;The rubygems site does not contribute to notability, nor does the single sentence + link at rubynews. That leaves us with one podcast, and railsbricks was only one topic among six discussed.  There's just not enough out there in the way of WP:RS to warrant an article.  If uptake continues and coverage starts to accrue, the article can be recreated.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Obviously non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:14, 31 August 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.