- 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. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FUDforum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly non-notable software. One paragraph review at the most in obscure sources. Pcap ping 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (nom withdrawn, see below)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find in Google is the official site, download sites, wikis, a forum, Twitter, information about a software vulnerability, and blogs. All that I found in Google News for significant coverage is [1]. I found a lot of mentions in Google Books, but they are all trivial. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: extended review on forum-software.org and AJAX Magazine. If SYS-CON Media, Inc. is considered a "notable" source these references may also help: No FUD about FUDForum, Don't like FUDforum? Give phpBB a try, Readers react to phpBB & spyce series and Stop your BBS shopping & try FUDforum. Best regards. Naudefj (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- forum-software.org has been discussed in other AfDs; it's hard to say it's a WP:RS: no list of staff, editorial policy, or info on who the owners are. Pcap ping 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted forum-software via the listed address and they immediately responded by adding the required info to their site. Best regards. Naudefj (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The AJAX magazine link is one paragraph about moving their forums to FUDForum software; marginal relevance. Pcap ping 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sys-con does look like a WP:RS though, but only two articles from the same author [2] [3] are about FUDforum, in the other two there are only passing mentions. Pcap ping 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- forum-software.org has been discussed in other AfDs; it's hard to say it's a WP:RS: no list of staff, editorial policy, or info on who the owners are. Pcap ping 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of other references to the forum from a number of different places:
- Keep analysis of feature set and comparison to other similar packages Project tracker and reviews since 2003 openSource contribution tracker 3rd Party Tutorials—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliaal (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC) — Iliaal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. The article was a bit spammy. I have removed a section claiming they have no security vulnerabilities, uncited WP:PEACOCK plaudits about its author, and the dry-list version history. Pcap ping 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a bunch of google books hits. Most are trivial mentions, but this one says it's popular. Pcap ping 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Following this lead I bought the September 2005 (PDF) issue of php|architect and sure enough, FUDforum is not only mentioned in Ilia Alshanetsky's "An Introduction to PDO" article, but also contains a comprehensive multi-page review of FUDforum 2.7.1 by Peter B. Macintyre. Regards. Naudefj (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that's so even though the online toc of that issue has no mention of FUDforum. Since you bought the pdf, please add the reference with page range to the article. Given that there's in-depth coverage in two independent sources, I'm withdrawing this nomination. The debate won't be closed yet because Joe Chill !voted delete, and he is harder to convince than I am. An administrator will eventually close the discussion. Pcap ping 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The toc page is clearly truncated. See mention on the magazine's front page. Regards. Naudefj (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pcap's right. I still think that this is non-notable, but this AfD will obviously close as keep. Joe Chill (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that's so even though the online toc of that issue has no mention of FUDforum. Since you bought the pdf, please add the reference with page range to the article. Given that there's in-depth coverage in two independent sources, I'm withdrawing this nomination. The debate won't be closed yet because Joe Chill !voted delete, and he is harder to convince than I am. An administrator will eventually close the discussion. Pcap ping 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Don't know if phpdeveloper.org is considered WP:RS but Jacob Santos' Blog: phpBB is Dead, Long Live FUDForum (or at least SMF) Kgb123 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.