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 redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zenphoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability and no independent references. I don't see a speedy deletion that applies, and as the page has been deleted before it's ineligible for PROD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Power~enwiki G4 likely applies...why not just do that? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review the citations and ongoing discussion already at "talk:Zenphoto." Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also review "talk:Coppermine Photo Gallery." Coppermine Photo Gallery was also voted to be kept on Wikipedia after a deletion nomination, despite being less popular and less notable in the USA than Zenphoto is. If Zenphoto is not notable enough, then several other articles on both English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia would also need to be deleted for consistency. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.zenphoto.org/news/articles-about-zenphoto/ Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Few things: 1.) Existence in other languages is meaningless. Notability criteria is not shared among all WMF projects but even if it were, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. 2.) The idea that a carefully curated selection of articles "about" ZenPhoto, as picked by ZenPhoto would somehow equate to notability is laughable at best. Okay after reading that list, it really is laughable and almost entirely blogs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We don't do consistency; but for on-the-face-of-it-independent coverage you could point to a half-page review here: John Lewell (26 August 2011). Digital Photography for Next to Nothing: Free and Low Cost Hardware and Software to Help You Shoot Like a Pro. John Wiley & Sons. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-470-97058-4. and a short para is here: Noyster (talk), 12:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are evidently not impressed by the available sourcing here; but better than Delete would be Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software: Noyster (talk), 18:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on what's in the article now, this would qualify for WP:A7. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS. As for Coppermine, see WP:Articles for deletion/Coppermine Photo Gallery (2nd nomination) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software per Noyster and WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Result founded on Google. But not yet notable. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 16:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article at present does not have a single reference. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A classic argument to avoid: Noyster (talk), 13:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, but WP:RUBBISH also says, Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The existence of other stuff holds no weight here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:48, 15 March 2018 (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.