From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The arguments presented by Ekerazha for retaining the article violate Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) reply

  • 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) reply
  • 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) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply
  • 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 [1], that does pass WP:GNG.
  • Also, it was showed at the big Devmarch Summit [2] and I think this is a second source.
Ekerazha ( talk) 12:22, 21 February 2010 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The arguments presented by Ekerazha for retaining the article violate Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) reply

  • 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) reply
  • 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) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply
  • 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 [1], that does pass WP:GNG.
  • Also, it was showed at the big Devmarch Summit [2] and I think this is a second source.
Ekerazha ( talk) 12:22, 21 February 2010 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook