Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenphoto


 * 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   Delete as failing the basics of notability - not because of a failure to adhere to NPOV. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Zenphoto

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongo  matic  16:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom (yes, I did look at the article). Chutznik (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably delete. Almost all the references on the article page are internal to Zenphoto, and one goes to LinkedIn, which doesn't count for much. Chidon01 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have significantly upgraded the content of the page, with better description of what it does. There aren't many third party links on the subject, but the Zenphoto Showcase page links to more than 150 external sites. Mgagnonlv Mgagnonlv (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Mgagnonlv (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. This is significant software. The case has not been made for deletion. The article was deleted due to it being a poor quality stub article - that is no longer the case. Also, I would like to know how to remove that banner for deletion. Can someone point me to the proper steps?Rusl (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "This is significant" isn't really much to go on. Could you give an example of what you consider to be significant independent coverage in a reliable source? Bongo  matic  03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The deletion banner (or the entire article) will be removed when this discussion is closed. Bongo  matic  03:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates WP:NPOV. Notable for weak security http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-0995 not mentioned in article. Article is promotional, incomplete, unbalanced. DocTree (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV is not a reason for deletion because it can be remedied by editing, but I don't see the references to substantial third-party coverage required by WP:GNG.  Sandstein   05:04, 3 May 2012 (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.