Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CubicWeb

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. Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CubicWeb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimal evidence of notability for this web application framework. The papers and conference talks relating to CubicWeb all seem to have been created or co-created by employees of Logilab, the makers of CubicWeb. As far as notable third-party mentions of CubicWeb, all I could find was this 2011 InfoWorld article, which is not currently included in the Wikipedia article. It does provide some evidence of notability, but I don't think it's enough. Yaron K. (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and searches have found nothing better at all, article shows no convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1]
[2]
[3] (subscription required)
[4]
[5]
[6] (seems to be reasonably reliable)
[7] (seems to be reasonably reliable)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.