Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabrik (open source)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 5 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 02:56, 5 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 merge to Joomla. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fabrik (open source) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Joomla. Seems a notable enough extension to mention there. Pcap ping 03:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While Fabrik is one of the more popular Joomla extensions, I don't believe it meets general notability guidelines. FWIW, when I nominated Jquarks for deletion I found and tagged a number of other Joomla extensions into the category Joomla extensions, which should make it easy to identify other likely AfD candidates. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why the notable (in the common sense of the word) extentions souldn't be briefly described in the Joomla! article. It would make it more informative (it's pretty short right now), and the information is wouldn't be WP:UNDUE there as long as Joomla books also mention/discuss those extensions. WP:N does not govern article contents; see also WP:PRESERVE. Pcap ping 07:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why the notable (in the common sense of the word) extentions souldn't be briefly described in the Joomla! article. It would make it more informative (it's pretty short right now), and the information is wouldn't be WP:UNDUE there as long as Joomla books also mention/discuss those extensions. WP:N does not govern article contents; see also WP:PRESERVE. Pcap ping 07:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not independently notable. This does not preclude sourced content being written in the Joomla article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Joomla. It is worth mentioning in the article. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:11, 3 January 2010 (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.