Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PunBB (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. With two 'week keeps' from established editors, I can only view this as no consensus, given the view in Spartaz's nom  Wifione  Message 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

PunBB
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article was deleted following an earlier AFD but some sourcing was adduced at a deletion review at Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_26. The consensus was to relist this for discussion in the context of those sources. As I am listing this in my capacity as the DRV closer I take no position on the outcome of this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources mentioned were and . Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * weak keep I think the listing admin missed one: . (It is behind a paywall, but I have access). It is a moderate source that uses PunBB as a standard workload.  That doesn't mean a whole lot, but it does mean that the authors expected others to accept this as a common bit of software.  There are a number of others academic papers that do something similar.  I'm not sure how much that should count for.  But I think when combined with things like  and perhaps  (in German, don't know if is a RS) and the like, we've got enough for an article.  Hobit (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 00:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep on the basis from the first reference found above, several mentions in books that call the subject one of the "most popular" forum implementation tools, and the reference found by Hobit, which I will assume good faith on because I can't access it myself. I would have liked to have seen a little more in-depth coverage of it, though.  Many books only give it a passing mention. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We have articles on http://www.forum-software.org/punbb/review site. its major site about all forum engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimkalinux (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 November 2011 (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.