Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireGPG


 * 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 List of Firefox extensions.  MBisanz  talk 02:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

FireGPG

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a Firefox extension that makes no claim of notability and is unsourced. A prod was removed by creator without comment. Zim Zala Bim talk  02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Firefox extensions. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 02:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Politizer, not notable enough for its own article. Scapler (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: Notabilty: article about FireGPG in linux.com and Article from IBM Rational Application Security Insider. --Jmundo (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both links are rather trivial coverage; I concur that the software probably isn't notable enough. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The two links are just an example found in my search. More online coverage: from New Freedom and another tec blog. Also the FireGP is debated in many tec forums like this one.--Jmundo (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs and discussion boards are not reliable sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I used the blogs and discussion boards to establish notability, one of the main reasons for deleting this article.--Jmundo (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary criterion of notability is non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer." Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. A newspaper blog cites FireGPG. --Jmundo (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It gets a sentence. "Significant coverage" this is not. Ray (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Politizer. If we have to resort to blogs to establish "notability," then there probably isn't any. Ray (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting questions: Why this article was choosen for deletion? Are we going to start deleting all the Firefox extensions articles? The majority of them are stubs, don't have any third party references beside the official mozilla website and the majority are tag as unreferenced. Can somebody explain why this Firefox extension is less notable than the rest? Are we going to apply the same policies to the rest of the articles in the list or are we going be cherry picking?--Jmundo (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Send me the links to other extensions that don't assert notability, and I'm happy to address them. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  17:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I submitted an incomplete list to your talk page.--Jmundo (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or the shorter version, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 07:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:"In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts". I am sure you have read: Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument--Jmundo (talk) 23:47, 8 December 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.