- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator per Mark viking's comment.
- ICEfaces (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 lacks third-party sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I thought it might have one, but this is not a third-party source, as the author of that article, Stephen Maryka, is the CTO of ICEsoft Technologies. SudoGhost 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep WP:SOFIXIT This, along with RichFaces, are probably the two major JSF stacks in recent use. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT has nothing to do with notability and does not explain why the article should be kept, and "probably a major JSF stack" boils down to WP:VALINFO; that has to established through reliable sources. - SudoGhost 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then JFGI and do some research. Here's a starter, the general newbie coder comparison page for Ice, Rich & Prime [1]. Are you a Java developer? If so, you ought to know about JSF. If not, then what the hell are you doing trying to delete articles where you don't understand the basic background? How's that supposed to work? This is a crappy article. See talk: for some years now. However we make progress incrementally, not by claiming something should be deleted, just because one editor personally doesn't understand it. If you want better articles, then work on making articles better, rather than throwing away what we do have so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there is a difference between article issues that do not warrant deletion, and notability issues that do. You're again arguing about the former, and that has nothing to do with why this article was sent to AfD, so WP:IMPERFECT is as inappropriate to cite as WP:SOFIXIT, neither apply here. The article must be able to show notability; if only "Java developers can understand it" then there is a critical issue with the article, and that usually indicates that it isn't as notable as you think. If you want the article to be kept then fix it yourself; that works both ways and that burden is on you, if you are unable or unwilling to do so, do not ask others to do it for you. As it stands, this topic has not been shown to be notable, and does not warrant an article on Wikipedia.
- Then JFGI and do some research. Here's a starter, the general newbie coder comparison page for Ice, Rich & Prime [1]. Are you a Java developer? If so, you ought to know about JSF. If not, then what the hell are you doing trying to delete articles where you don't understand the basic background? How's that supposed to work? This is a crappy article. See talk: for some years now. However we make progress incrementally, not by claiming something should be deleted, just because one editor personally doesn't understand it. If you want better articles, then work on making articles better, rather than throwing away what we do have so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also see WP:NPA; using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is not allowed. It doesn't matter if I am "a Java developer" or not, if this article cannot show notability then it does not belong on Wikipedia, and resorting to attacking others will not change that. I am well aware of what JavaServer Faces is, but that doesn't mean that any and every open source implementation of it is somehow notable without actually showing notability, without third-party sources, the article does not belong on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter how crappy the article is or how much or how little I understand the subject, those do not factor into an AfD discussion in any way. - SudoGhost 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Participating in AfD can be frustrating at times, but I agree that we should keep the discussion civil, per WP:CIVIL. Sources I found:
- There is a book devoted to Icefaces, Icefaces 1.8: Next Generation Enterprise Web Development from Packt Publishing, a reputable publisher in the computer software field and from an author who doesn't seem to work for the company.
- Iceface was one of two frameworks used in a study of accessability.
- Icefaces merits a chapter in the book Jsf 1.2 Components The author of the chapter works for the company, but the book is a comparative study of different frameworks, so I consider this a reliable, peer-reviewed source.
- A news article on integration of Icefaces with Netbeans from the http://sun.systemnews.com/ news site.
- This was also reported on the [2] site, a reputable publisher.
- Icefaces has its own tag at stackoverflow.
- There is a tutorial on using Icefaces at Oracle, keeper of Java.
- Except for sources 3 and 6, these are all reliable, secondary, independent, in depth, sources; source 3 is primary but peer-reviewed and I consider it reliable. Multiple reliable secondary sources indicate that this topic is notable and it is reasonable to keep the the article. Mark viking (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (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.