Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swfdec


 * 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 Adobe Flash. J04n(talk page) 05:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Swfdec

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Flash as a technology is dead, and so is this project to make an open-source alternative to it. There is no news coverage of consequence about it. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep- an article to expand on a surely notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — Knight of Infinity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, Knight of Infinity. I was not successful in my search for non-trivial coverage of this topic from reliable publications.  What was your basis for determining notability?  AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 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) 12:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Swfdec does appear to have been mentioned in some books on various Linux distributions . I don't think it amounts to "significant coverage," though. Google News archives gets some hits. Of note is this article from what appears a Japanese open source software magazine. As of yet, I'm undecided on whether to keep or delete. CtP  (t • c) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If not notable, could merge/redirect to Adobe_Flash which already briefly mentions swfdec. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Adobe_Flash. The LWN ref in the article is a reliable source, but I could not find any others that were in depth. The topic seems to fall below threshold of general notability guidelines. However, the topic is clearly verifiable and it is reasonable to think that users may want to search for it. Colapeninsula's recommendation of a redirect to its entry in the more general Flash article makes good sense. There is not a lot to merge--maybe mention that there is a Mozilla plugin, too and include the LWN article as a reference for verification. --Mark viking (talk) 13:25, 28 February 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.