Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peewee ORM

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. There's a lot written here, but unfortunately, much of it (on both sides) doesn't speak to wikipedia policy. Without nit-picking most of it, I will state that github usage statistics cary zero weight in these arguments. What we're looking for are reliable, third-party, independent, sources to establish notability according to our own (perhaps arcane) rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peewee ORM

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

Article has been tagged for notability since April 2015. Sources included in the article are all first party. While a Google search returns a significant amount of hits, I don't see the kind of articles outside the programming community that would establish notability for what seems to be a relatively obscure application. I will go with a weak delete unless somebody can find a couple of solid, third party, reliable sources outside of the immediate programming community that would establish notability for this application. Article just went into a week long semi-protect due to editing disputes, so looks like the perfect time to take this to AfD. Safiel (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maintainer of peewee orm. I cannot comment on whether a page is warranted or not for this tool. Here are some third party sources:

Regarding the edits, I've been being harassed by a rabid contributor out to shame me into obedience...ugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.154.125 (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Regarding the edit dispute. IF this article survives AfD and IF the editing disputes continue after the page protection expires, the matter will likely have to be referred to the appropriate noticeboard. But for now the dispute is safely on hold with the page protection in place, so lets see if the article even survives. If it is deleted, the editing dispute will be moot. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All three sources given mention the application only in passing, so even taken as a whole, they do not confer notability. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I asked for the article to be deleted during the last two days and would be happy to see it gone. It's caused me nothing but grief the last month or so. Regarding those "sources", yeah I wasn't suggesting they were proof positive of relevancy. But they are examples of third party sources calling out the project as being very (whatever adjective the article used). But at the end of the day, please just kill it with extreme prejudice. - Charles Leifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.188.137 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue against deletion. This is roughly the third most popular ORM for Python best I can tell. It has 2958 "stars" and 548 "forks" on GitHub, which indicate a quite high level of developer interaction. For comparison, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Language_Toolkit has 3579/1098 stars/forks, and has a similar level of detail in its wikipedia article, and all holy heck would be unleashed in the CS community if it that were deleted. NLTK does have more external articles, but I'd argue that's more because there just isn't that much to say about an ORM, as it's a very well understood concept. I know the project's creator is arguing for its deletion, but that seems motivated by his dislike for the criticism/edit war, not that he truly thinks it's not notable. (Full disclosure, I participated in that editing, though not the only one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C100:9F00:C1D:FE84:2530:49D4 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://teamtreehouse.com/library/using-databases-in-python/meet-peewee/meet-peewee-our-orm
http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2014/07/17/an-intro-to-peewee-another-python-orm/
http://jonathansoma.com/tutorials/webapps/intro-to-peewee/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:102:8EA7:8EA:305F:8704:D87E (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm new here but I don't think this article should be deleted. It's quite popular in the python community it seems. Expatriaticus (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability in Wikipedia is quite clearly and logically defined, and it often surprises me how the programming community can lose sight of these simple rules yet can be obsessively precise in their application of programming rules. This article does not demonstrate notability as required by Wikipedia. In the absence of notability the article fails to establish a justification for being included in Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing does not establish notability for this subject. The material can possibly be found elsewhere. This is not enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2016 (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.