Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple and Fast Multimedia Library Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simple_and_Fast_Multimedia_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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple and Fast Multimedia Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Same rationale as previous Prod. There do not appear to be any reliable, independent sources for verification. Subject hasn't received any significant coverage, nor does the article make any indication of importance. Propose deletion on the grounds of WP:V and WP:N Marasmusine (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to find any reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems to be a reasonably well established library, which is used in many projects. I can find several websites and blogs that mention it (although I'm not sure if they can be considered reliable sources). For example: [1][2][3][4] Laurent (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned on Linuxfr too: [5]
    • Thanks for looking. Ideally we need something other than self-published sources. Marasmusine (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've come across several forums that recommend using SFML over the popular SDL. In effort to find more information about SFML, I headed over to wikipedia and was surprised to see that this article did not exist (even though it was menioned on the SDL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slythfox (talk • contribs) 01:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs improvement, but I think it is notable enough to be included. Aroni125 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (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.