Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenXava

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenXava[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I could not find much in-depth coverage, only basic re-prints of material from OpenXava's own site. This might explain why the article has only one reference which is OpenXava's own release notes. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Javierpaniza:, who has created this article and was basically the only major contributor to it and who might be interesed in saving and improving this article. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Javierpaniza: left a comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/OpenXava with the following sources:

Etiqueta: openxava - a personal blog of Jesús L.C., which is deffinitelly not a reliable source
¿QUÉ ES OPENXAVA? - might be reliable source with in-depth coverage, if there is evidence of editorial review.
Desarrollo rápido de aplicaciones CRUD con OpenXava - looks like a blog post with a generic guide. Given that this publication lacks any focus, I doubt there is any content review. I would not consider this reliable.
Interview with Javier Paniza on OpenXava 2.1 - this is an interview with a connected person, so it is not independent. The publication is generally considered reliable and this specific article could be used as a source for the basic information about OpenXava in the article, but does not help establish notability.
Liferay 6.2 User Interface Development - this might be reliable and in-depth, if there is evidence of editorial review done by Packt Publishing. I see no evidence of editorial review right now.
OpenXava website - this does not help establish notability.

Anton.bersh (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

2. is a personal blog, as said in about me section

5. looks like it contains a tutorial/guide for doing some specific thing in openXava, which I think isn't reliable source by wikipedia standard (?)

Myself, I only one release note, not enough to establish notability. – K4rolB (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant news coverage. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the sources above in a bit more detail and none of them look good (they are either not relaible or not in-depth or both). Anton.bersh (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the few naked objects (and thus domain-driven design) frameworks. With +250.000 downloads probably the most widely used one. Since DDD had and still has a lot of news coverage, its major implementation should deserve its own article, even if it has not much news coverage on its own. --Sebastian.Dietrich (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. if kept, I would help in improving the article here and in german wikipedia --Sebastian.Dietrich (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the Wikipedia guidelines does it state or even remotely imply that being one of the few naked objects or having a quarter of a million downloads means that an article on a subject should be kept. We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We already have massive systemic bias in favour of software products over other kinds of tools, and relaxing our requirements in this area would only exacerbate it further. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 28 July 2021 (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.