Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nana (C++ library)

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. ✗plicit 13:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Nana (C++ library)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nana (C++ library) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with nominator, I tried searching for the sources, but couldn't find anything, just random blogs (e.g. "The 7 Best C++ Frameworks"). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Skt34 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please see WP:PERNOM, in short, it is a bad habit to just post Delete without providing your reasons. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• There are at least two books that refer to this library (The German book "C++ Schnelleinstieg", ISBN 9783747503249, page 45, that praises ease of use for C++ beginners, and Soft Computing Applications, ISBN 9783030519926, page 289). At the time I wrote the initial version of that article, I found out that many other GUI libraries on wikipedia (see some to the ones mentioned in section "see also") did not have more notability evidence (e.g. some have no references at all, some have only blog references, some have only self references except one reference to a financial transactions), and the sources provided appeared sufficient in comparison. I do not object to the deletion , especially as this library does not seem to be maintained anymore, but if this article gets deleted, there should be equal treatment and those other ones lacking notability should be deleted as well. Christophe (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2023 (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.