Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambalache Interface Designer

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. asilvering (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalache Interface Designer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources given is a primary source Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some secondary sources Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Miminity. Just wanted to check if the secondary sources I added are enough to address the concerns? Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, some of the sources you provided are questionable in terms of reliability. See WP:PRS to see what's some of the reliable sources But again I cannot determine them at my own but some sources you added seems like a WP:USERGEN. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glade Interface Designer#Cambalache: Per nom. Lordseriouspig 21:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject should be listed to a stub for expansion, passes WP:Notable Tesleemah 08:05,23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tesleemah:, as I said it lacks significant coverage for reliable sources per WP:GNG secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Google News yields one result from a questionable source (here). The sources provides is primary. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT / WP:PRODUCT. None of the sources in the article show or contribute to notability in any way. Searching online I found press releases and forum discussions/repository entries showing that it does indeed exist and is used, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the article's subject on Wikipedia at this time. Source assessment table follows. - Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKM6_dB8hoM&t=227s	This is a conference talk by the developer of the software	~		✘ No
https://github.com/Taiko2k/GTK4PythonTutorial	A self-published guide on GitHub.	~		✘ No
https://www.altusintel.com/public-yy6hrj/	Press release	Press release		✘ No
https://www.linuxadictos.com/en/swap-a-tool-for-creating-gtk-user-interfaces.html	Churnalism: Almost verbatim copy of the press release above.			✘ No
https://alternativeto.net/software/cambalache/about/	~ All content is copied from project	~	It is a bare database entry with no context or analysis of content	✘ No
https://connectwww.com/create-beautiful-user-interface-for-gtk-applications-with-cambalache/63200/	You pay to have content published on the site.			✘ No
https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2024/06/21/new-cambalache-development-release-0-91-1/	Developer's blog			✘ No
https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2024/09/13/introducing-casilda-wayland-compositor-widget/	Developer's blog			✘ No
https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2024/06/21/new-cambalache-development-release-0-91-1/	Developer's blog			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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.