Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yii


 * 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. The consensus is clear, and if this decision is inconsistent with that for Kohana, that is the way AfD works. I looked at the last source added by Ekerazha to see if it might justify a last-minute reprieve to relisting; but it only lists Yii among over 100 applications nominated for awards. JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yii

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

AfDs for this article: 

Yii Framework was deleted twice for the lack of notability. Same problem here: yet another web php framework. Peni (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Symbol delete vote.svg Recreation of the previous article. Still not covered outside of blogs and howtos.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Published on the php|architect magazine. Ekerazha (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (GregJackP (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep and TIRED about this situation, this article and Kohana were both deleted, Kohana was created again and survived the new deletion request (opened by me) with no new arguments, just more fans who wanted to "keep" it. Please note Yii also has more hits on Google than Kohana (and a written book on Yii will be out soon). If you delete this article while keeping the other one, you can trust me I'll ignore the Kohana deletion discussion and I'll delete that article with my hands, I'm TIRED of this lack of consistency. Ekerazha (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources pass the muster for WP:GNG. That Kohana got closed as "no consensus" by an admin exhausted by the walls of text and irrelevant links posted is irrelevant to this discussion. Pcap ping  19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Irrelevant" was a good reason to delete the article... and this is very relevant as this is the same situation. Ekerazha (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the php|architect magazine does pass WP:GNG ("Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media"). Ekerazha (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding a little Flash to applications is a common approach web developers take as they strive to meet today’s buzzword compliance. Maximizing interoperability and data exchange by leveraging web Services to allow application-to-application communication has revolutionized the Web business model. It’s hard to imagine the Internet today without the Web service APIs of, among many others, Google, Yahoo and Amazon. This article shows how to easily accomplish both of these modern Web development demands by using the extremely powerful and light-weight PHP framework, Yii.
 *  Delete  per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The php|architect magazine source (Google cache) to which Ekerazha refers is insufficient in that the coverage is not the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG: Yii: Flex Your Flash by Jeff Winesett

The arguments presented by Ekerazha for retaining the article violate Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, such as WP:GOOGLEHITS. If none of the Google hits for Yii are reliable sources, none of them can be used to establish notability per Notability (web). The argument for keeping Yii because Kohana was not deleted is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; furthermore, the AfD for Kohana was closed as "no consensus" which means that the article can be renominated later if notability concerns have not been rectified. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just the toc of the magazine. The actual magazine presumably has more coverage, but it costs money to download. Still just one source. We had a similar situation with FUDforum, but there someone paid to have a look the magazine issue. Pcap ping  10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting my erroneous assumption. Note to those wishing to retain the article: if you can provide a second nontrivial reliable source, I will support keeping this article. Cunard (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: This AfD was originally closed as "delete" but was relisted after this note on Cirt's talk page. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't see anything wrong with Cirt's decision - I really don't see the required multiple reliable references for this -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked Cirt to reevaluate the close since s/he closed the previous two AfDs. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, it would be best for another admin to close it. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment (Keep): please note WP:GOOGLEHITS says "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is...". Well, it is, we have a significant coverage (where Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.) which also include:
 * The php|architect magazine (July 2009) that does pass WP:GNG.
 * Same magazine, another article, March 2009, that does pass WP:GNG.
 * Also, it was showed at the big Devmarch Summit and I think this is a second source.
 * Ekerazha (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those sources. Whilst the Devmarch Summit link is a passing mention, the two articles articles from php|architect indicate that Yii passes WP:GNG. Changed to keep. Cunard (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2010 (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.