Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuddyPress


 * 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. The consensus after relisting appears to be that the article is sufficiently covered in depth.  DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

BuddyPress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still confirm my removed PROD; my analysis of the now added sourced are 1 PR and the the other 2 are simply a few unconvincing paragraphs; there's still no actual substance. SwisterTwister  talk  22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Entire books, book chapters and scholarly sources are devoted to the topic. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 22:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 314 pages.
 * 130 pages.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.
 * Comment about these sources - Analyzing these listed sources have journals, which is perhaps something, but I'm still not seeing enough as some of this is still thin, especially since we're not sure about the needed depth, some of the last sources, I will note, are simply interviews. SwisterTwister   talk  00:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Automattic as wholly unremarkable on its own; "further reading" sources are mostly fluff. Coverage is not there to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia entry. I trimmed the article by removing "product brochure" content and uncited claims, and there's just nothing there. Add: the Automattic article appears to have spawned sub-articles on every WordPress plug-in; I think most of them can be consolidated there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I have provided herein consist of significant coverage, which is the very premise of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the sources are certainly not "fluff" whatsoever. Rather, they are quite detailed and thorough. North America1000 04:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This may be good content for Automattic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources provided by Northamerica1000 seem to estabilish notability for this article. Pavlor (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment simply seems to be based from what the sources may seem'' to be like at first time, I wonder if they have simply ignored what I said above and chose to consider it notable simply by their own choices. SwisterTwister   talk  22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit I´m a little bit puzzled here. I just started to take part on the AfD stuff, but I see similar patterns in various discussions: the same editors support delete in cases, where other editors (usually also repeating names) think notability is proven. Maybe never-ending inclusionists vs deletionists dispute? I´m probably more on the "inclusionist" side, because I think sources are sufficient to keep this article. Pavlor (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and for other reasons, such as the fact that we need a larger labor force (of editors). I hope that you will join us.  If you do, it's useful to know that what we truly need are more editors like Northamerica1000, who search out and bring sources to the debate.  Sources weigh far more than opinion in these discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ., I do not think it is helpful to talk about a inclusionist versus a deletionist "side"   or to hope that a person joins one party  or another. Each article depends on the individual circumstances, and there are many to take into account, besides notability . Even with notability, almost everyone here tends to be more skeptical of  particular types of articles, and more willing to accept others. It will always be a matter of degrees,  which articles are worth fixing, and no matte where one sets the boundary, there will always be a fuzzy zone about what articles will be harmful to an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per sources brought by User:Northamerica1000. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. obviously per the sources provided above. The nominator's dismissal of a whole book from an independent academic publisher about this topic as not demonstrating notabilty is, quite obviously, gross incompetence. Why does the English Wikipedia still allow such a grossly incompetent editor to have such an influence over article deletion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.