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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Yesod (web framework) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This article is entirely original research and is textbook WP:NOTMANUAL. WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies here. Additionally, the topic seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT as the only independent, reliable, significant, secondary source I could find on this was [1]. – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• DeleteKeep. I'm a big fan of Haskell and this framework in particular, but the sources are definitely not there. I'm not sure if the "Admin magazine" piece counts as a RS. Enterprisey ( talk!) 00:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  User:Enterprisey good news for your fandom - there's easily sources passing GNG, the best is already in the article (per below). Widefox; talk 03:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  I have changed my recommendation to Keep, since O'Reilly published an entire book about this framework (which Google Books didn't bring up for some reason). Enterprisey ( talk!) 05:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep ( WP:SKCRIT#3 (didn't see source in EXT) WP:SKCRIT#2b "edit warring/against consensus disruption on Haskell xmonad AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination) today/blanking [2] [3] Haskell articles today [4], multi nom of Haskell articles today, repeated use of incorrect WP:NORG for FOSS despite consensus at several AfDs that it's not valid, repeated lack of WP:BEFORE per other AfDs, WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo" or WP:SK#NOT aka WP:SNOW) There's a whole O'Reilly book on the topic included in the External links! plus Seven Web Frameworks in Seven Weeks: Adventures in Better Web Apps admin-magazine.com Haskell High Performance Programming (smaller mention, but not trivial) Beginning Haskell: A Project-Based Approach ... the RS goes on... . Widefox; talk 03:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment nom - was WP:BEFORE done? Any quick search finds more than the book that's in the EXT?! WP:NUKEANDPAVE clearly doesn't apply. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP applies as article is primary source mess, but not commercial spam or anything (i.e. "NOTMANUAL is irrelevant, PRODUCT is NCORP and this is software not a company or product and nom knows it is against consensus at other AfDs" ), but WP:NEXIST is policy - we don't delete just because sources aren't in the article. In this case, they're even in the article! (footnotes are all primary/non-third party but that's irrelevant for N). just reading the article it has the O'Reilly book. Further, nom's AfDed two of the three Haskell web frameworks, removed content from several Haskell articles and is against consensus at AfD on the Haskell xmonad today. Widefox; talk 03:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

You didn't even read my nomination. I said that that book was the only source I found. Can you please calm down? – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 03:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: Widefox has edited this comment. It had previously criticized me for not finding the O'Reilly book. – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 03:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

(Yes, I fixed my comment before anyone else commented as it was incorrect, which is allowed.) Did you do BEFORE?, and if you start deleting and blanking lots of Haskell articles in the same day, just when your attempt at deleting Haskell xmonad is failing, don't you think someone will notice a pattern? Widefox; talk 03:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I did. Did you read the nom? I said the only source I found was the book, which I found independently when I was checking for sources, since I didn't check the external links section. – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

So I shouldn't have struck WP:SKCRIT#3 as you've confirmed you didn't read the article. Unstruck. Widefox; talk 05:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC) struck WP:SKCRIT#3 to deescalate - still a Speedy Keep is OK, or Keep. Widefox; talk 10:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The O'Reilly book and the chapter in Seven Web Frameworks in Seven Weeks: Adventures in Better Web Apps, which compares and contrasts web frameworks, and the other sources mentioned above are enough to show that the topic has in depth reliable sourcing. The article itself is meticulously cited to mostly primary sources and could use some secondary sourcing and cleanup of excessive detail. But I don't see any problems that could not be fixed with ordinary editing. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests a keep. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 22:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep That's at least two sources that discuss this framework in detail. I apologize for not finding that second book and withdraw this nomination. – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 22:38, 27 September 2018 (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.