Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinc Application Framework
- 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Zinc Application Framework (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)
Article nominated for deletion because of "lack of notability" and "lack of reliable sources" by insistent IP editor. Let's have a proper discussion about this. One point they offer is that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed", a sentence which is part of a maintenance template placed above the article since March 2010 (!). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment: This is one of a number of computing toolkit/framework articles PROD'd by IP addresses on or about the 19th May with a claim of There are no independent sources. It seemed probable and has now become almost certain one of a small number of IP users involved in this are using rapidly switching IP's ... there's nothing wrong in switching IP's and it may be technically unavoidable but it is distracting. A cursory glance at Google Scholar was showing some sources for at least some of those PROD'd articles indicating we *may* have some sources. (Reliable checking out takes some time ... more than I really have). Major contributors to the articles did not seem to be being contacted ... again not mandatory but best practice. On balance I have chosen to dePROD some of those articles many of which were then subject to content removal ... as per this article. The article is obviously in a poor state with regards to references at this moment in time, however WP:BEFORE still requires a due diligence check by the nominator prior to AfD and I am seeing Google Scholar results that have not been addressed by the nominator and I have better things in life than drilling into these at this moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep There is 9 page comparison of Zinc Application Framework 4.0 and Wndx GUI Development System 2.04e in the InfoWorld magazine - looks like really solid RS:
- I found mid-size news about version 4.0 release in the Computerworld magazine (15 August 1994, p. 72), but this one is probably based on a press-release. There is also one page review of the "Zinc Interface Library" in PC Mag (17 December 1991, p. 75), but I´m not sure if this one has anything in common with the subject of this article (other than parent company and software development market). However, brief search via Google shows last release of "Zinc Interface Library" was version 3.0 and the first release of "Zinc Application Framework" was version 4.0, so it may be evolution of one project. I will try to use these sources (and few other short news I found) to improve the article, if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I completed article rewrite (as my English language skills are weak, someone should "anglicize" text I wrote - if the article is kept of course). I used mostly RS (reviews and news in published/online magazines) and two company webpages. I also included some sources in the "Further reading" section, if anyone is willing to expand the article (these were in the PR section of the archived zinc.com website, but all but one should be RS; only exception is Embedded Systems Programming article, which was written by representative of Zinc Software partner company PSA, useable source anyway). Original article was plain copy/paste from the PSA website, I reworded this a little bit. Pavlor (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. With Pavlor's rewrite, the prose has become a reasonably well-sourced stub based on multiple mostly reliable sources. Nice work. The promotional prose is gone and the description looks neutral to me. The cited sourcing plus the sources in Further Reading, spread over 15 years, are sufficient to demonstrate notability in multiple reliable sources. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2018 (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.