Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebGUI (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WebGUI

WebGUI (edit | 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 was kept at AfD in 2007, but standards were so different then. I don't think it quite crosses the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:VAGUEWAVE dithering hedge-beds nomination ... one of several put at AfD by nom. today.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment [[User:Djm-leighpark, thanks for putting up an interesting link, I'll bear its points in mind. You've recommended 'keep' but haven't actually given a reason why you think it is notable or how it meets the criteria. Could you please elaborate? Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion, Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs. Best to stick to the old Pig racing. By [[ I read that I am been given the old extended test. If Boleyn does not mean to give the extended test then they should likely fix themselves. @Boleyn you as nom. have scrutinised the article and the previous AfD, whose views you have somewhat scummered, possibly without letting them know. The key point here is the nom. leaves the analysis in your head on not on this project page. Which if any sources do you find good or questionable? To not leave the benefit on the page but leaving everyone else to go over the same thing is bad. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)

user:Djm-leighpark, I will try to answer your point but had difficulty understanding all of it. I have no idea what an 'extended test' is or your comment to Tough pigs. I am just asking you why you think this article passes notability, as you have stated not comment on nom but keep. For the sources, they are mainly primary and include a blog, of those in the article. From my own searches, I couldn't find the significant coverage in varied sources that I would expect for an article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There appears to be some reliable coverage here.★Trekker (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources in the article are, in order; a blogpost with release notes, a compilation of reviews about "the best Content Management Systems", the webpage of the company, the founder's bio on the same webpage, the WebGUI webpage, a webpage with a 502 error, and the WebGUI webpage regarding the mascot. Aside from this interview / Q&A with the company founder there's nothing in the news. Fails WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: (Yang & Lili, 2016); (Newwork World) and (Business.com) all ment WP:RS.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Has some coverage and probably useful to have an article on this. North8000 (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, the content is probably useful and there is a fair amount of coverage in books and articles. Please note that the page is also visited on average 27/day. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A look at the articles covering this topic shows that they're just brief mentions. It's not enough to have reliable sources; the sources need to cover the topic in a significant way. Fails WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:33, 15 July 2020 (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.