Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plogger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Plogger
No indication of why this open-source photo software package is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- What kinds of things make an entry notable? I read a few of the core Wiki entries, and quite frankly I don't see why this is not notable. Do I need to gather blog entries about how much people like it or something? Do I have to find out what websites use this gallery? It is a very useful, developer-friendly piece of software, and it is available for free to the public. It is easy to install, easy to use, and lots of people use it. I don't understand what more could be needed to be "notable."
Also keep in mind that this IS NOT ADVERTISING. I simply want to provide information about the software, because I feel that people should be able to access the information, similar to how they would access information about Coppermine, or any of the other photo gallery software.
Thanks, Aurachron (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed this yet to see if I agree with the nom. However, you can find information on the notability requirements of businesses at WP:CORP and products of companies at WP:PRODUCT. Note that the nomination is not currently accusing this article of being spam. Redfarmer (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose I am simply misunderstanding why there are so many other articles available on Wikipedia Photo Gallery Comparison that often contain less useful content than I have provided. Keep in mind I have nothing against policy on Wikipedia, but I'm just bothered by the fact that a lot of the articles on the comparison page I listed can exist without scrutiny. I guess it just seems like if the topic of these open-source photo galleries is notable enough for that many people to write articles about them and compare them, then why can't I add one more to the list so that people can have the information available to them?
Thanks,
Aurachron (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that in addition to what you've already been pointed to you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at this point. We aren't discussing those other articles. We are discussing this article. Please address it, making an argument that is based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lets take a look at some articles that feature and give credit/support to plogger:
- I suggest that in addition to what you've already been pointed to you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at this point. We aren't discussing those other articles. We are discussing this article. Please address it, making an argument that is based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose I am simply misunderstanding why there are so many other articles available on Wikipedia Photo Gallery Comparison that often contain less useful content than I have provided. Keep in mind I have nothing against policy on Wikipedia, but I'm just bothered by the fact that a lot of the articles on the comparison page I listed can exist without scrutiny. I guess it just seems like if the topic of these open-source photo galleries is notable enough for that many people to write articles about them and compare them, then why can't I add one more to the list so that people can have the information available to them?
- I haven't reviewed this yet to see if I agree with the nom. However, you can find information on the notability requirements of businesses at WP:CORP and products of companies at WP:PRODUCT. Note that the nomination is not currently accusing this article of being spam. Redfarmer (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- [1]
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]
- [8]
Does any of that give notability? Aurachron (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no attribution of notability from independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here is another source, as it is highly ranked by users on HotScripts, a popular web development script resource: Plogger on HotScripts. In addition to this, there are numerous positive reviews on the same site Plogger Reviews. Here is another similar page with many positive reviews, and on this site it is rated 'excellent' Plogger on Web Script Directory. Aurachron (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It has a chance, actually. The author seems to really want to expand this article, and Google turns up over 300,000 results. ― LADY GALAXY 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with LADY GALAXY. The product is legitimate, and seems to have quite a few users. The problem is the lack of citations, even though there seem to be some moderately useful ones around. I will go ahead and add a few from Aurachron's list, above, and see what else I can locate, too. Tim Ross·talk 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I apologize for a lack of a lot of sources, but there are a lot online -- I'm relatively new to posting things in Wikipedia, but I feel that this product deserves to have information available on Wikipedia. I will try to locate some more articles that may be useful for other visitors. Thanks for giving my entry consideration!
Aurachron (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There are still no reliable sources which would support notability in the article. (also the article gives little or no useful information, though this is a very secondary point. But what is the point of an article that says almost nothing about a non-notable topic?) NBeale (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and source - I would say it just about scrapes in being notable. It just needs adequate sourcing. ScarianCall me Pat 16:00, 26 January 2008 (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.
