Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwigo


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Piwigo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article about a non-notable piece of software Jac 16888  Talk 18:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"non-notable"? A software which started in 2002, 7000 subscribers to the newsletter and more than 20000 download per months! 500 extensions (with also Lightroom, Aperture, Shotwell... plugins !), more than 12 languages... "Unsourced" is right since only the contributors of a software can know the deep history of a software PS:sry if that's badly formatted Flop25 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's age, it's number of users, it's number of languages, none of these are an indication of notability - what is required are reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability, i.e. real world impact. If there are no references to be found then there can be no article-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is

http://www.design3edge.com/2010/08/26/best-free-and-open-source-php-image-galleries/

I found many articles about installing Piwigo http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/build-your-own-flickr-piwigo

http://www.debian-news.net/2013/05/12/install-piwigo-gallery-on-nginx-with-debian-wheezy/

http://blog.tinola.com/?e=28

http://www.maketecheasier.com/make-a-custom-web-gallery-with-piwigo/2013/02/25

http://www.softaculous.com/softwares/galleries/Piwigo

etc

Script of the day softpedia http://news.softpedia.com/news/Script-of-the-Day-Piwigo-337822.shtml

and there is the Ohloh page http://www.ohloh.net/p/piwigo : that's a third party website, so could we use their information?

Sry we are not in the NY Times but in European journals

Flop25 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ohloh says:
 * has a well established, mature codebase
 * maintained by a very large development team
 * with increasing Y-O-Y commits

The fact that Piwigo is translated in 50+ languages is already a fact that it is widely spread and supported by a worldwide community.

Pierricklegall (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of those could be considered a reliable source, maybe the linux journal one but the rest are just your run of the mill blogs and self-published pages etc with nothing to actually demonstrate notability. And again, the number of languages or the size of it's community do not automatically confer notability - there has to be reliable sources to demonstrate it-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't know what to do today, you should check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_gallery_software and clean up Wikipedia like you're doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flop25 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF the existence (or non-existence) of an article does not justify the creation (or deletion) of another - if you don't believe an article on that page meets Wikipedias standards you are of course free to nominate them for deletion as well-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, does the fact that major desktop photo gallery softwares like iPhoto (default photo manager on Mac), Picasa (famous from Google), Lightroom (the number one among pro photographers), Aperture (made by Apple for pro photographers), digiKam (photo manager on KDE for Linux/Windows/Mac), shotwell (default photo manager on Ubuntu, and Piwigo is proposed officialy with Facebook, Flickr and Google publishing) all have created an import plugin for Piwigo isn't a "3rd party source of reliability"? Pierricklegall (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not if there are no reliable sources to back it up, or to demonstrate that the plugins were created by Apple/Google/Facebook etc rather than by an unrelated 3rd party as I'm sure will be the case for the Linux plugins-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand. None of the export tools were created by Apple/Google/Facebook of course.Pierricklegall (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the fact that "Powered by Piwigo" gives more than 5 millions results in Google is valuable?Pierricklegall (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * see WP:GHITS, and please read through the other links I have provided-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We provided arguments which you refuted, but could we know what are yours? Thx Flop25 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already given them - the article is unsourced and therefore does not demonstrate notability-- Jac 16888 Talk 21:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth of the ones I just looked most of the articles on that comparison page seem to have the exact same issues as this one, and I shall be looking into them-- Jac 16888 Talk 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Defford (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC) - Piwigo - reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability

I started using Piwigo a year ago after hearing from many sources about its “notability” i.e. that it is worthy of notice as premier web-based photo gallery software.

The Wikipedia article on Piwigo appears very high in web searches with Google and Bing, directly after Piwigo.org itself and Piwigo.com, and should not be deleted. It is an important source of reference.

I decided to Google for "piwigo third-party sources" and found the following sources as reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability, i.e. real world impact:-

I read this in a third-party independent review:

http://www.techtangerine.com/2012/01/15/piwigo-and-zenphoto-a-comparative-review/

"I found Wikipedia very helpful in narrowing down on Piwigo and Zenphoto. Apparently, these two Open Source web-based photo galleries have the most features. A close third would probably be Coppermine."

The same article is carried in http://www.haxordoubt.com/

A similar summary is in Linux Today:

http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/build-your-own-flickr-with-piwigo.html

"Build Your Own Flickr with Piwigo"

The following is from a detailed Linux Journal article about Piwigo:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/build-your-own-flickr-piwigo

"If you haven't considered Piwigo, you owe it to yourself to try."

Linux Tools For Serious Photographers is another independent article about Piwigo:

http://scribblesandsnaps.com/linux-tools-for-serious-photographers/

"If you are looking for a web-based application that allows you to host photos on your own server, Piwigo should be at the top of your list."

Linux Magazine has an article:

http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Productivity-Sauce/DIY-Mobile-Photo-Sharing-with-Piwigo-and-ReGalAndroid

"DIY Mobile Photo Sharing with Piwigo and ReGalAndroid"

A General web and hosting related blog by Softaculous describes:

http://www.softaculous.com/blog/tag/features-2/

What you can do with Piwigo

“Piwigo is photo gallery software for the web, built by an active community of users and developers.”

digiKam, an advanced digital photo management application for Linux, Windows, and Mac-OSX, recommends Piwigo:

http://www.digikam.org/news?page=15

New exporter for Piwigo galleries

“Some of you may not know Piwigo yet: it's a powerful web gallery based on usual PHP/MySQL technologies. It's a good solution if you want to self-host your photos and avoid third-parties services like Picasa or Flickr.”

Finally, LMAX Exchange (a Foreign Exchange blog) has a summary about Piwigo:

http://blogs.lmax.com/staff-blogs/2013/02/piwigo-video/

"I settled on piwigo for a web photo gallery"

I trust that Wikipedia will reconsider the case for deletion, especially once the article has been updated with suitable, reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability. Defford (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the Alien (software) discussion about its deletion: the article is even lighter than the one of Piwigo, and the moderator accepted the Linux Mag Article and the other minor articles as a proof of notability.

Moreover, Piwigo is a tool, the goal of a tool is to be used, so -for me with a common sense- the proofs of the notability of a tool are the number of users, and for software, the number of articles talking of HowTo/Comparison...

So I think the real problem is the content and the source of the article, not its existence Flop25 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tadjio: I have updated the article including third-party source references. Defford (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources added are not reliable third party coverage, and the current article smacks of ref-bombing every single mention of the piece on the web to make it appear notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So you want more references, but adding more references is "ref-bombing" and cause for deletion? Nice double-bind!
 * This whole thing makes me sad, If anyone has ever wondered why new Wikipedia editors are in such short supply they need look no further than deletion logs like this one. JasperWallace (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It's hard to separate out discussions of software notability from their importance, and to distinguish true reviews from press releases, but in this case I think the articles are sufficiently independent to justify an article.,especially the one in LinuxJ  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article as it is now is pretty spammy and many of those external links have to go (not to mention the entire "main featured" section), but as DGG demonstrated, the Linux Journal article seems to evoke notability.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:20, 30 May 2013 (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.