- ZK_Framework (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
We cannot accept this deletion because of not-notable. ZK is a famous Ajax framework which is always listed the most active project over the past two years on sourceforge.net, the biggest open source hostting website. There are two published books, ZK - Ajax without JavaScript, and ZK Developer's Guide. Simply google ZK, and ZK Framework is listed the most relevant item. More reference could be found:
- The new ZK version. Java Magazin German 07/2006.
- ZK and Agile at TheServerSide
- The ZK Framework at Dr.Dobb's Poral
- ZK - AJAX without the JavaScript at IBM Developer's Works
- Ajax with the ZK Framework at deverloper.com
- ZK Ajax Java Web Framework: Ajax with no Javascript at infoQ.com Robbiecheng (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A university seminar work. Ajax Sudoku game developed with the ZK Framework at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. 30.04.2009 link
- The new ZK Studio version. Java Magazin German 11/2008.
- JSP Tags and Zkoss. JaxEnter Magazin 12/2008.
- Features of the new release 3.5 . Entwickler.de Magazin
- ZK Studio and Eclipse 3.4 Ganymed. Entwickler.de MagazinTerrytornado (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Deletion review is a venue to address a failure to follow the deletion process (e.g. closing a debate as "keep" when almost all the commenters suggested deletion, and the comments were grounded in policy). It is not a de novo hearing of the case. Note that arguments from very new users are customarily discounted or given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would userfy on request. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin AFD opened 14 days, comments made adhered to policy. Otherwise normal. MBisanz talk 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – proper admin closure. This is not AFD round 2. I think the fact that the nom, who also ended up !voting two more time - probably not aware of it, pales to the fact that the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping. MuZemike 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Cannot I propose a 3rd AFD? Please read those references, I was too late to provide notability evidence. It's the evidence that matters not only because of who said it, isn't it? Robbiecheng (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can certainly bring evidence that the subject is notable before a deletion review. That's one of the purposes of a deletion review, and you should ignore anyone who seeks to imply otherwise.
The often-repeated comment that "DRV is not AfD round 2" is particularly unhelpful to a new user, because the new user tends to take that as meaning "Your article has been deleted, this is not the right place to appeal the deletion, and I'm not going to tell you where the right place to appeal the deletion is." In other words, whether or not it's intended that way, it usually comes across as a totally bureaucratic stone wall. You can certainly propose a 3rd AfD, and Deletion Review can lead to that outcome. But in this case, I think the article is falling under the bar Wikipedia sets for articles about products. There are good reasons why Wikipedia has strong rules about what products can receive articles. If we weren't fairly tough with this policy, then our encyclopaedia would be drowning in marketing spam from people who're alive to the advertising possibilities of having an article. What you need to prove, to get this article kept, is notability—in other words, in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia does have articles about products; there's Coca-Cola and Microsoft Windows and Chicken McNugget. We even have a fairly brief article on Bic biro. But that's the kind of level of notability we're aiming for. As a side-note, wikipedia editors are often very cynical about new users who've not shown much commitment to the encyclopaedia but do show a strong attachment to a particular company or product, and I'm sure you can see why. But our policy on this is assume good faith, so that attitude is often taken too far.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to see today's knowledge to be deleted. More than 60 years, we had this in Germany. The books burning in the 2nd World War. Hopefully you have a good conscience.Terrytornado (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Godwin's law at work, I suppose. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, we have a "vague wave" nomination rationale with the phrase "non notable", the nominator then !votes twice, the second !vote basically saying "hurry up and delete this damn thing". Now If I were a new user who had just created an article and got this treatment, I'd be pissed. Therefore my first knee jerk emotional reaction was to !vote "overturn and relist". However, we also have 3 SPAs !voting "keep", two "good faith" "delete" !votes with fair rationales and one SPA in this discussion comparing the deletion with book burning in Nazi Germany which reduces my sympathy level. Therefore, I think the fair thing to do is to Userfy the article and give the creator a chance to write a sourced article that meets our notability guidelines. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to userfication. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - The AfD was properly closed. I'd consider allowing recreation if it seemed that there was a chance that reliable sources might be found that were not added to the article up till now. The new sources listed above don't include any mentions in books, print magazines, or edited web sites (that are well enough known to have their own Wikipedia articles), so far as I can tell. Two books have been written about ZK. I checked the older of the two (published in 2008) to see if the book is held in any Worldcat libraries, but it is not. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore One of the articles is from a rRS, DrDobbs Portal, the online version of the famous Dr. Dobbs Journal. DGG (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the user EdJohnston do not or will not look right at the sources. A few of the new articles are smaller summaries of the printed articles. Yes, there are other not english languaged developer magazins in the world. ITRepublik, Java Magazin, Entwickler Magazin, JAX, Business Technology.
link hereTerrytornado (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a good reason to do not delete the post. You've learned here in Wikipedia that in other countries are also magazines.[reply]
- That link's above, and I did read it. Some of us do speak other languages... not everyone here is American. *grins*
De.wikipedia takes a very different attitude to reliable sources from en.wikipedia. On de.wikipedia, if other editors think it's true, you can write it. On en.wikipedia, you have to source not only that it's true, but that it's notable. Having said that, on second look, DGG could be right that the DrDobbs Portal site is over the bar. It-republik.de is not.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the AfD was properly interpreted, and the setting up of sockpuppets to vote your side is never a good idea regardless. - Biruitorul Talk 01:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that there's no excuse for socking but take a look at the discussion again. The first "keep" !vote was obviously involved with this project. However, it was then followed by the nominator !voting twice, the second one being particularly bitey. Perhaps the creator figured that if it's ok for the nominator to !vote twice, then so can he. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, userfy - I'm not convinced all of those are reliable sources, but let's see what they can do to improve it. - Biruitorul Talk 16:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the list of Ajax frameworks, which include ZK, Richfaces, OpenXava, Google Web Toolkit. The notability if out of the question. Or you can google gwt, and zk, they have been compared in many articles. if GWT deserves an article, why not ZK? Robbiecheng (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and userfy for referencing. The user provides the references the people who voted to delete said didn't exist which suggest WP:GNG could be met. With that addressed, there's no reason to not give an improved article a chance. - Mgm|(talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak undelete. As mentioned in the nomination of this DRV, there are 2 independent published books about this topic: Chen/Cheng ZK - Ajax without JavaScript and Staeuble/Schumacher ZK Developer's Guide. Isn't that guarantee enough of notability? Moreover, these publications were not mentioned in the original article, nor in the AfD; so DRV is absolutely the right place to bring this up. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a good candidate for userification Protonk (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. The AfD discussion clearly ended with a consensus to delete (give or take a few suspicious newbies who failed to provide any reasoning better than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT). However, there may be potential for making the article encyclopedia-worthy, so I'd try and see what happens. —Admiral Norton (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn ZK is notable, if google zk, you will get 9,660,000 entries, and zk framework is listed in the 1st place, and 9 out of 11 entries in the fist page is related to zk framework. It means google engine "thinks" this framework is the most relative to these two letter "zk" out of 90 million plus hits. 220.133.44.37 (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)— 220.133.44.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Just so you know, Google hits are not an indication of notability and are definately not a reason to overturn an AFD. That being said, even after ignoring this borderline SPA's comment userfication look like the likely outcome. Spiesr (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ZK is listed in the article AJAX, DHTML and JavaScript Libraries of Smashing Magazine and also mentioned in Next-Generation Applications Using Ajax and OpenAjax at the OpenAjax Alliance site. Tomg7 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)— Tomg7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Overturn More than 20 references are listed, and most of them are from reliable resources, would you please restore the page? Robbiecheng (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|