Deletion of Yesod (web framework)

Comment: #3 (didn't see source in EXT) #2b "edit warring/against consensus disruption on Haskell xmonad AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination) today/blanking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haskell_features&diff=861340968&oldid=860066947 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haskell_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=861340860 Haskell articles today https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happstack&diff=861370354&oldid=749972769, multi nom of Haskell articles today, repeated use of incorrect  for FOSS despite consensus at several AfDs that it's not valid, repeated lack of  per other AfDs, #User:Wumbolo" or #NOT aka ) There's a whole O'Reilly book on the topic included in the External links! plus https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1937785637 Seven Web Frameworks in Seven Weeks: Adventures in Better Web Apps http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2017/42/Haskell-framework-for-the-web admin-magazine.com https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rIVcDgAAQBAJ Haskell High Performance Programming (smaller mention, but not trivial) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IZsQAwAAQBAJ Beginning Haskell: A Project-Based Approach ... the RS goes on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SKCRIT||WP:NORG||WP:BEFORE||WP:ANI||WP:SK||WP:SNOW)

Comment: The O'Reilly book and the chapter in https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1937785637 Seven Web Frameworks in Seven Weeks: Adventures in Better Web Apps, which compares and contrasts web frameworks, and the other sources mentioned above are enough to show that the topic has in depth reliable sourcing. The article itself is meticulously cited to mostly primary sources and could use some secondary sourcing and cleanup of excessive detail. But I don't see any problems that could not be fixed with ordinary editing. A notable topic and an article with  problems suggests a keep. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: nom - was  done? Any quick search finds more than the book that's in the EXT?!  clearly doesn't apply.  applies as article is primary source mess, but not commercial spam or anything (i.e. "NOTMANUAL is irrelevant, PRODUCT is NCORP and this is software not a company or product and nom knows it is against consensus at other AfDs" ), but  is policy - we don't delete just because sources aren't in the article. In this case, they're even in the article! (footnotes are all primary/non-third party but that's irrelevant for N). just reading the article it has the O'Reilly book. Further, nom's AfDed two of the three Haskell web frameworks, removed content from several Haskell articles and is against consensus at AfD on the Haskell xmonad today
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:NUKEANDPAVE||WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP||WP:NEXIST)