Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ColorZilla
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. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 08:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ColorZilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable browser extension. 69.158.111.97 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I think this should also be extended to a large portion of Category:Mozilla extensions, with the exception of truly notable extensions, such as StumbleUpon and Google Toolbar. 69.158.104.240 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - it is just an extension, but I would say that it's one of the better known ones. --T-rex 23:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, where are the indpendent and reliable sources? GRBerry 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the internet, waiting for you to find and add them! Whilst we're asking rhetorical questions, why didn't you (as an admin) complete the afd for the anon that started it? or search for these refs yourself? Set a good example please! *grumblegrumble*
- However. I've added 2 books (it gets 4 pages of coverage in Firefox Secrets, and at least 3 mentions in Hacking Firefox) and a few relevant links, that should satisfy any concerns. It's in most top 10 lists for ff extensions. And that's without getting out of my chair...
- Suggest strong Keep. (I'm not sure how we're meant to end (or restart or whatever) this page-less/end-date-less afd?) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As to why I didn't complete the nom: I didn't even realize this wasn't an AFD subpage. It is transcluded on the June 11 AFD page. Rescuing article takes some time, too long to do in a quick break at the office, especially for an article I don't care about the topic of. GRBerry 03:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my apologies for that then. I didn't realize it was successfully included in one of the AfD subpages. And apologies for my earlier grumpiness (but it did only take me 5 minutes to search google-books, and use ottobib to generate the cite template).
- If we're ten days in, can this nom be closed; Is it sufficiently referenced now, for a stub length article? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As to why I didn't complete the nom: I didn't even realize this wasn't an AFD subpage. It is transcluded on the June 11 AFD page. Rescuing article takes some time, too long to do in a quick break at the office, especially for an article I don't care about the topic of. GRBerry 03:58, 21 June 2008 (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.