Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FusionForge

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 GForge. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FusionForge

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

Only used to promote it. Non-notable. No in-depth coverage. It is written just for directory purpose. Light2021 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: I looked up third-party sources for this topic and found a handful of them with some coverage:

A few paragraphs in The Debian Administrator's Handbook (online version)
Discussion of FusionForge as part of the work of Software Heritage from the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation here
Discussion of FusionForge as part of the work of Software Heritage in Hérault Tribune.
Post from a company with good analysis of project history.

It's not enough for notability for its own article, but the content would be suitable to move into a section of GForge and redirect the article there, so that we retain the verifiable information in an appropriate place. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FusionForge contributor proposition:

As main FusionForge contributor, it would be nice to keep FusionForge page or if needed to get more visibility than be redirected to a dead project (aka GForge open source flavor). What about merging GForge into FusionForge and redirect GForge page to Fusionforge and create a dedicated page for GForge AS which is a totally different project than GForge?

Some french communication about FusionForge: https://linuxfr.org/tags/fusionforge/public
Most GForge reference are dead or are running FusionForge.

Nerville (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea - it makes sense that FusionForge would be more likely than GForge to get additional press in the future. I'd be fine with consolidating GForge into FusionForge instead of the other way around. I think the combination would result in an article that's meaty enough to be a decent Wikipedia article. Probably GForge AS would just be a side-note on the resulting article, instead of having its own article, unless there are a lot of sources available for it. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge GForge page into Fusionforge page: I'm fine with merging GForge page into FusionForge. That makes sense to consolidate the information into one single article. GForge AS could be a dedicated paragraph. How could we proceed? Nerville (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD needs more comments from other people before there can be a consensus decision, so while we're waiting for that, I'd recommend fleshing out the FusionForge page as much as you can: first add information from the references listed here, and then start bringing in some of the material from the GForge article. That way the article will be in a stronger state, which makes a better case for keeping it like that instead of deleting it. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Work started. Nerville (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to GForge, per all of the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 29 July 2017 (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.