Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoodie (software)
It just about meets the |GNG in my judgment. The Infoworld article cited in the article is a reliable source. https://www.sitepoint.com/tutorial-getting-started-hoodie/ This article from Sitepoint (who are a reliable source in my view - they have an editorial process, they publish books, are generally well-respected) and https://www.gadgetdaily.xyz/discover-fast-app-dev-with-hoodie/ this tutorial from Gadget Magazine (similar). The opensource.com article used in the references also contributes to notability, although in a different way - in being about the community management side of the project. Opensource.com seems to be a reliable source - they have an independent editorial oversight process with named authors and editors, the authors seem to be reasonably knowledgable about the subject matter. Four sources, broadly reliable and GNG compliant. I'd agree that number of contributors or 'stars' on Github are not a measure of notability (hell, I wrote !) but the GNG is still met regardless. I'm also not keen on accusing new editors of . One should |assume good faith. The citations listed in the article are ''not'' a measure of notability under GNG, nor does the presence of a larger number of citations than might be expected for an article of that length mean that it is an attempt to feign being GNG. (An article can be unreferenced and still be GNG compliant, or it could have 50 citations and not meet the GNG. Part of the point of an AfD discussion is to verify whether the article is notable under GNG or other notability guidelines precisely because the references—or lack thereof—don't immediately answer that question
— User:Tom, 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NUMFRIENDS||WP:BOMBARDMENT||WP:AGF (Wikipedia:Notability)