Talk:PunBB

Prior deletion
Vadmium (talk, contribs) 13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/PunBB
 * Redirect re-created after discussion at User talk:Jayjg

FluxBB
When I merged the article on FluxBB into this one, I deliberately left some things out--for example, past development plans, details of the 2.0 alpha roadmap, and the version history, all of which are too detailed for a Wikipedia article. In addition, this is ultimately an article about PunBB. Excessive details about FluxBB (or a separate infobox for it) would make this a coatrack. If anyone wishes to restore content from the previous article, it should be done more selectively. wctaiwan (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, than it's time to split up PunBB and FluxBB, like it needs to be. Anyway, I don't see any reason why they are merged in the first place, just doesn't make any sense. There are a lot of project that are forked from another one, which are less popular and has their own Wikipedia page instead of inserted in the project they are forked from. If those articles stay merged, it chould be turned: PunBB merged in FluxBB, since the last one is in active development, and PunBB is not. O, and another thing: FluxBB is a fork of PunBB, but on its own, PunBB is based on FluxBB (look to the copyrights). --84.194.42.17 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who used to follow open source forum software, I've heard of both PunBB and FluxBB. When FluxBB was nominated for deletion, I suggested merger because while I thought it was possibly notable, I couldn't find sources covering it in depth outside of blogs etc., making it fail Wikipedia's standards for notability. Since FluxBB is known mostly as the successor to PunBB, I thought merging the article to this one was appropriate (at least until someone nominates this for deletion), given that it's not notable enough by Wikipedia's standards to support a standalone article, but popular enough to warrant some coverage on Wikipedia.
 * Like you said, FluxBB is kind of the successor of PunBB in a lot of peoples eyes, it's in active development, PunBB isn't. I think it's not logical to merge FluxBB in the article of PunBB. Merging PunBB in FluxBBs article is logical.--84.194.42.17 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With regard to the argument that less popular projects have their own articles--Wikipedia's open nature makes it possible for just about anyone to create an article on anything they want, and a lot of our articles, especially ones on more obscure companies and products, are in a poor state because they've only been edited by people trying to promote the subjects covered. That other non-notable subjects have their own articles is not, on its own, a valid argument to support keeping another article. wctaiwan (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)