Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FluxBB

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FluxBB

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Seemingly non-notable software. No coverage in reliable independent sources that I can see. Pcap ping 17:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find in Google is the official site, download sites, forums, a question and answer site, blogs, and hacking information. All that I can find in Google News is a download site and trivial mentions. All that I can find in Google Books is three trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure if this is the correct way to register a "keep" vote, but the reason for the lack of coverage may be the fact it is a fork of a previous software package called PunBB that was sold to a commercial entity - FluxBB is the very actively supported open source fork of that commercialised project. I personally run two forums (www.ibmportal.com which has been around for years) and another newer forum on it. Ben G — Bgiddins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep:You only have to be present on the FluxBB Forums to realise this is an active community dedicated to the improvement of the bloat-free forum package... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.212.4 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I meant to comment on this earlier and must have slipped... in any case I cannot find significant / non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to meet our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly notable software, being one of the major "light weight" competitors to the omnipresent phpBB boards. The reason there is not much mention may well be that FluxBB only recently split out from PunBB, but it is my impression that by far the majority of PunBB community followed along with FluxBB in the split, leaving PunBB as a more or less abandoned project. FluxBB is certainly being very actively developed, and is being widely used. --Pinnerup (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If deleted, it will be revived. As a fork from one of the most-used forum web applications that has literally millions of uses every week, users will come here and describe the history of the creation and looking for background. Like most web software that is a utility, there are not going to be many articles on this; mainly blog reviews on how to use it, how it is being changed. The industry blogs and reviews are the reliable sources on this kind of topic. - Yellowdesk (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If all you can find are blogs, that makes it impossible to verify the claims of widespread use, etc. Articles about forum software (not necessarily this one) do exist outside blogs; see FUDforum and its AfD for instance. Instead of making mere assertions here, you'd help a lot more if you look for sources. Pcap ping 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a black and white assertion inadequate to the qualifier "industry" above. At this point every news journal has something called a blog, and some blogs are actually online newspapers. Here are two "blogs" that are suitable for reference, though not on this topic. Talking Points Memo; http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/ "Dealbook - New York Times" -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, please provide some concrete independent source instead of arguing generalities, which I'm well aware of. Pcap ping 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The retraction of the assertion that industry blogs are inadequate is noted. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the site does rank on Alexa - currently 48,319th globally. Found a review at http://www.forum-software.org/fluxbb/review Ben G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.245.14 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published source that covers practically every forum software, insufficient on its own to establish notability. See the discussion in AfD for FUDforum: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUDforum— that article was kept, but not because of this source. Pcap ping 10:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This software does have references. For example, the famous IT magazine CHIP has an article about it: Granted, it is not in English, however this still proves that it is actually covered by "reliable" sources: http://www.chip.de/downloads/FluxBB_32283800.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.112.17 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the standard amount of text they have on any download page. It's not an article. Pcap ping 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article. Text. Whatever. It's a mention and a reliable source, I'd say 188.97.112.17 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable software by nontrivial references in the international press during the years 2008 and 2009. See this search in Google News Archives. These references should be used in the article. Article may be tagged with {{refimprove}}, but there is no case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifics? Here is my analysis of those 5 sources:
  - http://www.presse-citron.net/tag/google-chrome (dubious blog-like source, trivial mention)
  - http://www.pcwelt.de/downloads/browser_netz/online/172263/fluxbb/ (download page hosted on a reliable source, but no independent coverage, it has brief description form the manufacturer)
    - You are wrong. That is not a description by the manufacturer. 188.97.127.229 (talk)
  - http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Analyse-MIME-Sniffing-Probleme-bei-PHP-Anwendungen-Update-220615.html (reliable source, trivial mention in a list)
  - http://tech.sina.com.cn/mobile/n/2009-11-08/05221124027.shtml (unknown reliability, trivial mention in an article about some mobile phones)
  - http://www.ultimateps3.fr/forums/sujet-18687-webmaster-mettre-forum-dans-le-body.html (unreliable source, a forum)
- As you can see google news hits to dot contain only reliable sources, and hits there do not imply significant coverage either. Pcap ping 17:01, 15 February 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.