Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StencilJS

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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 16:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StencilJS[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)

The entire article is written from a possibly bias POV and the article is not written as it should be on an encyclopaedia. Not from a neutral perspective and sounds like an advertisement. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 18:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 18:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- StencilJS is one of the most popular JavaScript compiler that creates custom element (web components). It is used by companies like Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft, implying that it’s a battle-proven solution.Many third party independent sources have now been added to this page to prove its notability. --Curvasingh (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify- It is possible that this is notable but there is clear promotion and likely COI by the author as mentioned by nom and demonstrated by the above comment from the author. It should be put to draft space until third-parties can add a non-POV perspective. Bensci54 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, I don't think it's ready for prime time yet as they say. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - Have already added third-party independent sources to the article.--Curvasingh (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the independent sources were tutorials, which are primary sources. I could not find a secondary source after searching. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, a secondary source is one that talks about the subject. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2023 (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.