- 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]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:31, 28 February 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]
- 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.