Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohana (Web 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 delete. votes by SPA accounts that do not cite policy have been discarded. Notability is demonstrated by non-trivial secondary sources not assertion Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Kohana (Web Framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I can't find any references in reliable, third-party sources to support notability of this PHP web framework. All references in the article are to the primary source. VG ☎ 08:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 08:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• aarrgh not another one.. Delete no significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources independent of the subject that I'm able to find anyway. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look here Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks and here List_of_web_application_frameworks you'll see you could delete most of them :-) Ekerazha (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can but, that has no bearing on this particular discussion. If you want to nominate them based on policies and guidelines I'll gladly look at them on those basis but, I'm not gonna play the "if you delete my article, you have to delete all these others game". Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that and this isn't "my article" (I never contributed to it), I just replied to your "aarrgh not another one.." :-) Ekerazha (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you said "keep or delete every PHP framework" at a different AfD. I may have assumed wrongly that you were simply carrying on the same discussion here. If so I apologise. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was another discussion and that product was more notable than this, so yes, you've assumed it wrongly ;) Ekerazha (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it seems notable enough to me. Google gives 114,000 for "Kohana PHP" and, while most are blogs or news sites that probably aren't popular/mainstream enough to be used as sources, I'm not convinced that none exist. I just can't sort through all the blogs to find them. --Sydius (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment about hits: only two dice.com jobs list Kohana [1], and always in a list together with other similar PHP MVC frameworks, so it doesn't sound like it has much real life following. VG ☎ 16:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a job at ODesk, note that searching for Kohana won't return this job, already ASSIGNED jobs don't list in the search [2] Intel352 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- net (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOREASON. MuZemike (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, it seems like also this product can't be classified as notable. Ekerazha (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand why anyone would be pushing to delete this article. This article contains useful information, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? I vote we Keep it, unless someone can come up with a good reason for it to be deleted. Simply saying it's not noteworthy is rubbish, among my coworkers and programming friends Kohana is very notable! Isaiah 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— isaiahdw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep -- I think it is important to note, for historical record, that the Kohana PHP framework was a community fork of the popular CodeIgniter PHP framework. This alone merits an entry. The framework itself is also gaining popularity among experienced PHP developers, due to it's innovative and elegant approach to PHP5 web development. It is also listed as an official GoPHP5 compatible project, thus KohanaPHP will gain increased notability as PHP5 adoption continues to rise. Overall, KohanaPHP is an important contribution to PHP5. A recently created jobs website is available at kohanajobs.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neovive (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Neovive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep -- Notability is a pretty lame reason to delete this article. It's a very active framework, with more frequent releases than CodeIgniter (which it branched from). It is also one of the better PHP frameworks available. Intel352 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not understand why someone would even suggest removing this article? [3] Kohana is the first result for 'PHP 5 Framework'. We use Kohana as our framework of choice at work, as it is one of the best PHP frameworks available, it is definately very notable! Parkinm
• Keep - Kohana is also notable for being one of the few strict PHP5 frameworks out there, most PHP frameworks are PHP4 compatible, Kohana utilizes advanced features provided by PHP5 such as SPL, Iterators, Interfaces, etc. Kohana is also not in the class of PHP frameworks attempting to imitate Ruby on Rails, which would make those frameworks (CakePHP, for example) less notable than Kohana. Kohana is on the cutting-edge of PHP frameworks and it is increasing in popularity because developers are realizing it's potential.kolanos

213.123.197.81 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 213.123.197.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (User:parkin_m does not exist)

• Keep - This is ridiculous. Kohana is one of the big PHP frameworks. If this article is removed, you might as well remove the articles for CodeIgniter, CakePHP and Zend Framework. 217.85.143.114 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 217.85.143.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A PHP framework more notable than this (with syntax highlighting on NetBeans and with more hits on Google) has already been removed, so there wouldn't be any surprise if the Kohana page will be removed. Ekerazha (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? Other PHP frameworks (CakePHP, Symfony etc.) have entire books written about them, so it's trivial to establish notability. Since you seem to know something about Kohana, please add references from reliable, third-party sources to the article, and it won't be deleted. Simply claiming here that Kohana is "big" carries little weight. VG ☎ 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kohana is listed on GoPHP5.org which was referenced on InfoWorld [4]. Kohana ORM guide is available on Scribd [5]. Kohana is global - with 8 locally-managed mirrors for languages other than US-English. The fork from CodeIgniter was covered on devreview [6]. Neovive —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep — Why not look at the excellent quality of the code of the framework instead of the size of its community? geertdd (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Geertdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep — Kohana is still relatively new and, as such, doesn't have books or many external resources. Given its status as an Open Source Framework branched from another Open Source Framework whose page is not being considered for deletion, I'd say this should stay for the cross-talk. Would it be worthwhile to ask some software review programs and other projects to take a look at Kohana and write reviews or thoughts about it, then link to those from the page? What kind of time frame are we looking at to avoid deletion? Again, I don't believe deleting is a valid action here, but what are our options and timelines if you're bent in that direction? JAAulde (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— JAAulde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - I think the rationale for deletion is a complete farce. Since when did anything require a book or other reference to prove it's existence other than it's existence. To take another example JISC Collections, they have their own page within Wikipedia and have no external references other than links to their web site and a blog. JISC Collections certainly don't have book written about them and as such have as much right to exist on Wikipedia as the Kohana PHP framework does. I think it is a disgrace that am item, which obviously exists albeit new is considered not worthy of reference - surely that defeats the point of what a reference is! samsoir, (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion normally lasts 5 days. There's at least one book about CodeIgniter, but notability (in the Wikipedia sense) is not inherited, so Kohana being a fork of CodeIgniter does not automatically make it notable. Also, blog-based reviews don't help much either, because they don't count as reliable sources. VG ☎ 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note — Anyone here smell socks? MuZemike (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2008 (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.