Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coppermine Photo Gallery


 * 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, as it barely passes the notability guidelines. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Coppermine Photo Gallery

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No indication why this open-source photo software is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think it is claiming notability by the fact that it works with so many notable and popular server side programs for the web, and it is not an alpha or beta product, but an open sourced, stable build. I would think this crosses the threshold, if barely.   Pharmboy (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable software. It may work with well known software, but notability as we know is not inherited. Otherwise all Plugins for many well-known software would need articles. Poeloq (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Not arguing your decision, but this isn't the same as a plug in. It is stand alone software that is aware of many other software packages, thus acts as its own middleware.  It is a somewhat unique feature, not something to be inherited.  Pharmboy (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong KEEP: This is one of most popular Photo Gallery software on the web. Millions of sites use this software. The article needs a cleanup and overall re-write.  E d u e m o n i ↑ talk ↓ 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Vague hazy I-just-drank-a-bunch-of-coffee comment: I was under the impression Coppermine was one of the major players on the online photo gallery management software market; I've certainly seen it mentioned more than a few times. (Just a gut feeling - it doesn't seem to be included in Debian, for example, makes gauging the popularity a bit hard... though Debian popcon might be misleading, because quite a few WWW packages are "drop in the htdocs and enjoy" style installs and won't get installed by package managers, counted in popcon, or anything...) As such it could have actual media references etc. somewhere. Though I admittedly could very well be wrong here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:06, 16 January 2008 (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.