English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Ajile

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. When notability is uncertain at this moment, then WP:CRYSTAL states that we cannot keep the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ajile

Does not establish its notability, and a quick Google search doesn't suggest that it will anytime soon. Also seems to serve only to advertise the framework. — ^Fatal Error 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Doesnt seem to be of any note whatsoever. WP:NOTMANUAL. --neon white talk 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Per comments on its talk page, it may be more notable than presumed by these comments. It is also impossible to predict whether any topic will "establish notability . . . anytime soon". That's more of an opinion than fact. The previous deletion discussion can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.44.58 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)— 98.14.44.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This was previously on afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJILE/2006-07-13 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJILE, though the quality of those discussions is abysmal. The article is a blatant advertisement and manual primarily written by the software's author that Wikipedia has been abused into hosting for three and a half years now, waiting for it to "establish notability". As amply (and proudly!) evidenced by the software's official site itself, it has not. No third-party sources are presented to establish notability, almost certainly because none exist; googling finds nothing better than a handful of mentions on blogs. After this framework has become notable an article would be appropriate. That time is not now, and we've given it more than enough leniency in the meantime. —Korath (Talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete again. per User:Korath. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep None of these Delete votes appear to come from individuals with the technical knowledge to speak on this subject. So far these Delete votes seem opinion rather than fact based. This article can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards, why not use your apparent Wikipedia expertise to improve rather than delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.141.58.29 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Without third-party reliable sources, the article in fact can not be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards, and our Wikipedia expertise cannot be applied. If we were to apply our technical expertise, that would be original research, which is explicitly forbidden; no one else would be able to determine whether the article was valid without duplicating that research. —Korath (Talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I ran across this article because of a completely inappropriate link from Unobtrusive JavaScript, which further supports the idea that this is essentially an advertisement.--Inonit (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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.