Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefox extensions

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 (no consensus) (proposed cleanup and/or mergeto Extension (Mozilla)). Nabla 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefox extensions

Most of the content are just copied from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:1 so delete it Plotdream 12:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This Afd is User:Plotdreams first contribution to WP. John Vandenberg 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plotdream, are you asserting large chunks of this article are copyright violations of the descriptions on addons.mozilla.org? If not, do you believe the Wikipedia article is unnecessary because the information can be found elsewhere?

I often visit this extension list before I go to addons.mozilla.org because the latter is overrun with all extensions, and I am most often only interested in installing the quality extensions. As a number of these extensions are notable in their own right, this list lets me jump to the extensions article so that I can read a fact-checked feature list. Also the list gives the reader a good understanding of the extensibility of the Mozilla Firefox framework by listing only a subset of the quality extensions (higher signal to noise ratio); this last point could be achieved in more encyclopaedic ways, so if the current article is not acceptable based on policy, Extension (Mozilla) will need to be expanded. John Vandenberg 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Jayvdb said. This is a very useful page and by no means is it simply copied from the Firefox site so i don't see the ground for deletion. God forbid that Wikipedia might actually provide something that people might want to see. Nick mallory 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the point to this list... most of these won't ever warrant Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is probably not the best place to try to compile a definitive list of extensions. Category:Mozilla extensions works well to organize extensions for which we have articles. --W.marsh 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The point of John & Nick's comments was --as i understand them -- that this was a selective list of extensions; a list is one of the ways to organize material which is not individually N enough for articles. DGG 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while "useful" is not a criterion for keeping an article, I also don't see any clear reason for deletion here. It's all closely-related material (not indiscriminate), it's all verifiable, Mozilla Firefox is a notable peice of software, and its extensions are probably also notable, they've been written about by tech columnists and other web sites and so have verifiable, reliable sources even excluding the homepage. There's no real reason to delete, and many to keep. Wintermut3 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Keep I think the article is quiet useful, I don't see any clear evidence that it was a cut & paste job. Therefore I don't think it should be deleted. ~~ Vagish ^{T C}_VPS 09:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with some regrets. I'm a loyal FF user with too many extensions loaded :) but this article isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Pace John Vandenberg above, if the list is only a selection of notable extensions from the Mozilla site, we're looking at OR. The list should have a home (someone's one website?) but this isn't it. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost half of the entries in this list have a relevant article. i.e. the extension has its own article (Adblock), the extension is tightly coupled to a website (StumbleUpon), it is covered in a section of an article (Joga Bonito#Joga.com Companion) or has a redirect to the list for other less notable extensions (1-Click Weather). Deleting this article undoes a lot of good work. It is also worth noting that a russian article now exists. John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Firefox is notable, most of its extensions aren't. WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#IINFO. Notable extensions should be listed and described at Extension (Mozilla). Phony Saint 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont follow this reasoning at all; it is the list that needs to be notable (i.e. is it worth noting these things together), not the individual entries. John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You stated above that most of these extensions are notable; I disagree. An extension that has an article does not automatically become notable, and multiple objects listed together also does not automatically become notable. Those that are notable could be listed in Extension (Mozilla), as that article is not so long as to need a separate list page.

The list is inherently unmaintainable: there are a purported 2874 extensions, more are continually made. The list is also essentially a collection of short descriptions and links. WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#LINK are quite applicable here. Phony Saint 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notariety comment above. Scott.wheeler 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment by whom ? John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might make a decent category, assuming there are extensions that qualify for articles on their own merits, but as a list, I'm afraid it's a bad idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the list; did you click on the individual entries? Why is it a bad idea? John Vandenberg 01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've looked at the list, in fact, I prod'd it several months ago. I think it's a page that's likely to attract folks looking to use it to link to their favorite extension, and not provide informative content. That is something I'm sure the developers of Firefox find interesting, and important for them to include on their own pages. Is it truly encyclopedic? No, I don't quite agree, especially not in its current form. Maybe that can be fixed, I don't know, but right now, it's not. FrozenPurpleCube 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; your original comment was quite odd given there is already a category, and many of the extensions listed already have been deemed encyclopedic enough to warrant there own article. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. John Vandenberg 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While informative and probably useful, I don't really see the encyclopedic value or notability. I mean, what is the restriction on inclusion, here? Is it just the ones that editors like the best? If it's notability, then I question whether all of these are notable. I could maybe support a list that had a clear inclusion criteria, like "List of notable Firefox extensions," but in its current state, I have to go with deletion.Chunky Rice 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rearranged the article and culled a large percentage of the extensions. John Vandenberg 06:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response How are any of the remaining ones notable, aside from the official extensions? There is nothing in this article which can't be merged with the rather short Extension (Mozilla). Phony Saint 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and apply WP:EL, as we would with any other article. Andy Mabbett 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kaspo 09:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but add more intrawiki links. --R e m i 08:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If anything needs changed, merging it into Extension (Mozilla) could be a thing to do. Rtucker 23:13, 28 April 2007 (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.