Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XenForo

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 delete. —fetch ·comms 03:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XenForo

[edit]

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

Article describes unreleased software, violating policy against predictions. The very few third party sources that exist are speculation about the nature of the software. This article should be deleted until the software is actually released and third party sources exist to reference an article. Danger (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is a unreleased software. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the above case is to be applied, then should this not be the case for other unreleased software, especially those without a release date appended to the software? Additionally, all sources are verifiable. $-vrt (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other unreleased software without significant third-part coverage should, by this argument, also be deleted. If you find such an article, you are welcome to bring it to AfD. That is not an argument for keeping this article. Also, just so you know, verifiability is a concept that applies to claims within the article, not sources. --Danger (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure that the crystal ball argument applies here. The XenForo product indeed exists, you can see it and use it on the company website, it has just not been released to the public yet. (And while avoiding an other stuff exists argument, I'd like to point out that Internet Explorer 9 has also not been released.) There really is no speculation going on here; all facts are verified through primary sources. There is, however, a problem with notability. While the product has garnered a fair bit of mention in the relevant niche (webmaster sites [1], [2], [3], [4] and competing Forum software sites [5], [6], [7], [8]), I would have a hard time making a case for notability and must thus reluctantly suggest deleting and recreating when suitable third party sources appear. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep product is available for testing and use on the company site, every feature mentioned is either visible upon testing or has refrences. Does need better notability but an outright deletion based on the fact it is not released would be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CezzBB (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Chatter on web fora means people are interested, but that does not constitute coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the product has received significant coverage in reliable sources it would would be worthy for a stand-alone article regardless of it being WP:CRYSTAL in nature. However, I won't venture to take a position on the significance or reliability of the article's sourcing, as the subject if unfamiliar to me.--Pink Bull 04:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RSs means it fails WP:GNG. This may meet GNG in the future, though. Novaseminary (talk) 19:00, 8 September 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.