Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web.py


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Web.py
A piece of software that appears to have been released in January 2006. Neither the article nor the website indicate any particular notability (see WP:SOFTWARE), and Wikipedia is not a software directory. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We should have an article on C:\Windows\System32\Urlmon.dll first. :-P Kimchi.sg 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing special --Bachrach44 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in a world where there was no good way to dispatch urls in a sound manner, the actual solution is 'something special'. --Dafuchs 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable python scripts are a dime a dozen.  ergot 19:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why we should include the notable ones;) --Dafuchs 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Kimchi.sg. Oh wow, a bit of software written by ASwartz. Before we do this, we need an article about that one letter that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to that one guy. In other words, just because you're notable doesn't mean everything you do is notable (and the other way around). I have heard of this piece of software before (first time through Wikipedia though!), but it's probably not that widely used compared to, say, Turbogears or Django. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Go ahead, guys, no skin off my back. Sorry that you all wasted the flames, though.--Tmcw 00:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it lakes the hype of TurboGears, but it is used for more production sites than tg. I assume that tg is not yet suitable for large scale projects. --Dafuchs 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Todays python web frameworks are a shame. web.py is one of the few that get it right. I think it is definitely notable. --Dafuchs 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not questioning whether or not it's a good web framework - we cover awful stuff and great stuff alike without passing judgement to either way. What we're questioning if it's used widely enough, if it has gained enough fame. Something that has been just released in January probably isn't notable just yet. If you can produce media mentions or like, that'll probably help a bit. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Django has been released in July 2005 and the first version of the article dates back to 16. July 2005. This is the great advantage of wp, "never outdated";).--Dafuchs 12:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please attempt to tell us exactly how this software is notable according to our software notability guidelines. Pointing here and there to another random article, as you have just done, is just dodging the crucial question and making your replies much less respectable each time. You'll have wasted so many seconds typing on the keyboard without convincing anyone not to remove this article. Kimchi.sg 13:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you shouldn't make articles about really new things. All I'm saying you shouldn't make articles about really new things unless there's proof that it's really popular and notable - look at Main Page to see the news box, new articles on newsworthy events that shake the world. Rails had an article much much before 1.0 release, and I approved that exactly because new uses were springing up all the time and IT media couldn't shut up about it (and they still can't!). But let's not talk about those articles - let's talk about the multitude of websites and gigantic media buzz targeted at Web.py, shall we? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't see any reason why this software is so major that it should have an article in an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2006 (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.