Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanilla (forum)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla (forum)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable source, advertising, not notable enough IMO –ebraminiotalk 09:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla is used by over 500,000 users, how is it not notable? I have made modifications, that fix some bias comments, and I think make this deletion request no longer valid. Joey OneTime (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We mean in the strict Wikipedia sense of Notability. Was it ever noticed by someone besides its developers or users? All the sources given seem to be from its own fora, which are clearly not independent. It does seem more long-lasting that the usual two-kids-and-an-app, so might be hope if someone can find some that are independent. W Nowicki (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I added links from Gigaom, Techcrunch, Read Write Web, Rackspace and other sources that show its notable. Hope this will satisfy the criteria of notability,.. Joey OneTime (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Added citations, provided more information about the platform --Tamatalk 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is now a much more solid article. I added more media references. Hopefully this is enough to Keep--at least that's my vote.Joey OneTime (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

>Was it ever noticed by someone besides its developers or users?

As a consequence of this article people including myself, people became users and developers.

>All the sources given seem to be from its own fora, which are clearly not independent.

They are clearly and independently using the software and are not affiliated with the corporation nor do they receive any compensation. I build websites for companies and they request Vanilla forums, when asked where they learned about it, they refer to this article. I believe this article should stay it is of benefit to everyone.

There is simply not a good reason to delete this article and would be detrimental for Wikipedia to remove such a Notable Article since it benefits thousands of people who want to know about this software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.199.213.174 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep, but edit: Kcren (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability: Google search "powered by vanilla" (with quotes) for partial link count from forums managed by Vanilla worldwide. Search "top open-source forums" or extensive independent recognition as a significant player. Did everyone do these searches before voting to delete?
 * Writing: Poor, some self-promotional. Edit. Add the independent citations. "Delete and make them rewrite from scratch" is lazy policy, easy for us but destructive to Wikipedia. Prune instead of forcing people to grow a whole new tree.
 * Content value: This article (history, mostly) answered longstanding questions I had about Vanilla.
 * Compare to: Simple machines forum. Would we delete that one too? No way. Keep.


 * Keep - Agree, article needs work, but that is not a good reason to delete it. A new bad article will probably re-appear. I view independence, reliability, and depth of sources as a spectrum, not binary, and it looks like there are enough different sources that put all together, tip the scale. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I think recent edits have made the article much better. It would be horrible to see an innovator in the forum market deleted when it's obvious the community has come together to make this article better Adrianmtl (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep — The recent edits are quite enough to satisfy notability guidelines WP:GNG for multiple in-depth reliable sources. Toffanin (talk) 08:38, 27 July 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.