Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphaël (JavaScript Library)


 * 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. Nja 247 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Raphaël (JavaScript Library)

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

Article was PRODed, but I felt it better discussed first. It is pretty highly linked on Google, but it is difficult to find RS do to the generic name of the software. The fact that it is used on a couple major websites at least indicates the possibility that it is notable. I'm neutral for now. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable web application which has been written about in multiple reliable sources. Here are two sources from ZDNet Asia. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hardly notable and only received mostly trivial coverage from one news source.  GraYoshi2x► talk 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only has ONE (not two) reliable source mentions and that one was trivial and thus does not support notability. 16x9 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although this library is relatively nascent, it's been featured here on SitePoint, twice on ZDNet Asia (as mentioned above) and on the Ajaxian web developer blog. It was also demoed at WebJam 08 and is used on the websites of two national newspapers (as mentioned in the article). Richyfp (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Blogs are typically not considered reliable sources and there is only 1 (one) ZDNet Asia article, the two linked are the same (one is just a print version). Also, just because a product is used does not establish notability.  16x9 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Fair enough then, delete it. I'm not too fussed to be honest, just thought it was a noteworthy, although clearly not "notable", bit of technology.Richyfp (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Two major newspapers use it. That makes it notable. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law.  Read WP:NOTLAW if you don't haven't already.   D r e a m Focus  19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-consumer software with no showing of notability. Being used on notable websites does not equate with independent sources that confirm this programming library's notability outside of the programming trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2009 (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.