Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libpr0n

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 of the debate was delete. kingboyk 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] libpr0n

Delete - Non-notable - not known except by mozilla coders. Fails the "google test". In addition, the article heavily cites the unofficial "libpr0n.com" unofficial website, rather than including information from the Mozilla Foundation. While libpr0n is widely used, very few people know they are using it. It is solely (afaik) used in Gecko, and thus is non-notable in the field of programming things other than Mozilla. We don't even have an article on Necko, which is arguably more notable than libimg2. We shouldn't necessarily have an article for every component of every major computer program, unless said component is notable in of itself. Since this is arguably non-notable and since there is little to no useful content, I am nominating this for deletion. Zzxcnet 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, because we all love porn. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non encyclopedic. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If it is truely used as much without knowledge as the nom says then keep it. Mike _{(T C)} 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment libimg2 is the image library for Mozilla. (Firefox) Thus, it has as many users as Firefox has. However, it is not a separate package and is only useful within gecko. It incorporates things such as libpng, which are notable - but gecko's internal code for image rendering is not notable. Just because a part of an application is given a name doesn't necessarily mean it is notable in itself. Zzxcnet 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Too minor and too technical to be of any use, or to make for a significant article. --InShaneee 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Technical detail that may change. Also no mention of notability or novelty except the funny name. Pavel Vozenilek 06:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Wikipedia's really not the first place people come to learn about joke names for obscure software components, is it? After all, there's no article libimg2, and I'd say that's because the topic's of no interest to encyclopedia readers. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Interest limited to local community. Zero global importance. Possiblly mention this in Mozilla article.  Cdcon  19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ikkyu2 --Colonel Cow 21:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a Gecko (layout engine) article that it could be merged into, but I'm undecided as to whether that would be suitable. -- Mithent 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obscure, nonnotable software component. Nigelthefish 14:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to a related article. If its used by lots of people, we talk about it someplace. JeffBurdges 16:36, 2 March 2006 (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.