- 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 no consensus. After two relists there is no consensus and with no comments since the 16 June I don't think that a further relist is likely to change the situation. Just Chilling ( talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Phorum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable Clnreee ( talk) 08:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 09:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 09:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: A brief check of the books link indicates sources the nom. has not addressed in the nomination indicating lack of WP:BEFORE and generic use of not notable. There is concern for a 10+ year article with many contributors it is placed through PROD->AfD with no attempt to tag issues first or notify previous contributors and seemingly little neutral attempt to improve it. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? You've made some grand gestures in your comment, but have pointed to no actual references wth significant mentions from 3rd party reliable sources. This article is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
20:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is a balance of my time and your time and everyone else's time. If you can't be arsed to checkout and tell me why the books on the link above not significant but wish to waste a lot of other peoples time doing it then I'm not sure I'm going to do it at this point.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
21:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your continued attacks and negative assumptions are not appreciated. A full notability check was done, and this topic does not reach the wikipedia notability level, no matter what you may wish for. Again, you have provided no links to references to back up your claims. Your vote is a meaningless opinion not backed up by any evidence. This is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Failure demonstrate to follow
WP:BEFORE is not appreciated. Failure to consider alternatives such as tagging first is not appreciated. Failure to notify major contributors is not appreciated. That crap winds me up. isn't appreciated.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
08:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- And still, no one has provided any references to support notability. This is a clear delete based on lack of notability. Clnreee ( talk) 14:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Failure demonstrate to follow
WP:BEFORE is not appreciated. Failure to consider alternatives such as tagging first is not appreciated. Failure to notify major contributors is not appreciated. That crap winds me up. isn't appreciated.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
08:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your continued attacks and negative assumptions are not appreciated. A full notability check was done, and this topic does not reach the wikipedia notability level, no matter what you may wish for. Again, you have provided no links to references to back up your claims. Your vote is a meaningless opinion not backed up by any evidence. This is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is a balance of my time and your time and everyone else's time. If you can't be arsed to checkout and tell me why the books on the link above not significant but wish to waste a lot of other peoples time doing it then I'm not sure I'm going to do it at this point.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
21:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? You've made some grand gestures in your comment, but have pointed to no actual references wth significant mentions from 3rd party reliable sources. This article is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
20:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I see you are now possibly scummering the Pavlor who has kindly pointed out two relevant sources nicely in support of WP:NSOFT. Those add to Marcel Gagné's entry in Linux Journal which is sufficient and already present on the article. We have quite a number of other references that pass WP:GNG; It is significant enough to have made this and related security reports. the MySQL forums is significant. It is a product of the era perhaps the first decade of the millenium when it was notable and we must mindset to that time. If it was a paper product it would be gone some considerable time ago. But the article as it stands has problems ... (in fact I have never seen an article that has got away with a citations it has used for so long ... plus undeclared coi editing and it and needs cleanup, improvement and updating) ... which I am in the process of performing. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Only independent source with broader coverage of the article subject I found so far is this book: [1] (ca 15? pages from p. 623 are devoted to phorum). Other than that only passing mentions in RS, or coverage on sites with unclear reliability (pro-linux.de: [2]). Pavlor ( talk) 12:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- thanks especially for the book, I've added the chapter 24 on Phorum case study (security) to further reading in the interim. With the book being dated 1999 that was at the early point in Phorum's life ... and I'd note the CVE's raised against Phorum later ... [3]. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No resources to establish notability (I tried to find them and update the article, but I failed). Charmk ( talk) 02:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:01, 26 June 2019 (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.
- 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 no consensus. After two relists there is no consensus and with no comments since the 16 June I don't think that a further relist is likely to change the situation. Just Chilling ( talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Phorum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable Clnreee ( talk) 08:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 09:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 09:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: A brief check of the books link indicates sources the nom. has not addressed in the nomination indicating lack of WP:BEFORE and generic use of not notable. There is concern for a 10+ year article with many contributors it is placed through PROD->AfD with no attempt to tag issues first or notify previous contributors and seemingly little neutral attempt to improve it. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? You've made some grand gestures in your comment, but have pointed to no actual references wth significant mentions from 3rd party reliable sources. This article is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
20:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is a balance of my time and your time and everyone else's time. If you can't be arsed to checkout and tell me why the books on the link above not significant but wish to waste a lot of other peoples time doing it then I'm not sure I'm going to do it at this point.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
21:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your continued attacks and negative assumptions are not appreciated. A full notability check was done, and this topic does not reach the wikipedia notability level, no matter what you may wish for. Again, you have provided no links to references to back up your claims. Your vote is a meaningless opinion not backed up by any evidence. This is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Failure demonstrate to follow
WP:BEFORE is not appreciated. Failure to consider alternatives such as tagging first is not appreciated. Failure to notify major contributors is not appreciated. That crap winds me up. isn't appreciated.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
08:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- And still, no one has provided any references to support notability. This is a clear delete based on lack of notability. Clnreee ( talk) 14:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Failure demonstrate to follow
WP:BEFORE is not appreciated. Failure to consider alternatives such as tagging first is not appreciated. Failure to notify major contributors is not appreciated. That crap winds me up. isn't appreciated.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
08:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your continued attacks and negative assumptions are not appreciated. A full notability check was done, and this topic does not reach the wikipedia notability level, no matter what you may wish for. Again, you have provided no links to references to back up your claims. Your vote is a meaningless opinion not backed up by any evidence. This is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is a balance of my time and your time and everyone else's time. If you can't be arsed to checkout and tell me why the books on the link above not significant but wish to waste a lot of other peoples time doing it then I'm not sure I'm going to do it at this point.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
21:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? You've made some grand gestures in your comment, but have pointed to no actual references wth significant mentions from 3rd party reliable sources. This article is a clear delete.
Clnreee (
talk)
20:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I see you are now possibly scummering the Pavlor who has kindly pointed out two relevant sources nicely in support of WP:NSOFT. Those add to Marcel Gagné's entry in Linux Journal which is sufficient and already present on the article. We have quite a number of other references that pass WP:GNG; It is significant enough to have made this and related security reports. the MySQL forums is significant. It is a product of the era perhaps the first decade of the millenium when it was notable and we must mindset to that time. If it was a paper product it would be gone some considerable time ago. But the article as it stands has problems ... (in fact I have never seen an article that has got away with a citations it has used for so long ... plus undeclared coi editing and it and needs cleanup, improvement and updating) ... which I am in the process of performing. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Only independent source with broader coverage of the article subject I found so far is this book: [1] (ca 15? pages from p. 623 are devoted to phorum). Other than that only passing mentions in RS, or coverage on sites with unclear reliability (pro-linux.de: [2]). Pavlor ( talk) 12:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- thanks especially for the book, I've added the chapter 24 on Phorum case study (security) to further reading in the interim. With the book being dated 1999 that was at the early point in Phorum's life ... and I'd note the CVE's raised against Phorum later ... [3]. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No resources to establish notability (I tried to find them and update the article, but I failed). Charmk ( talk) 02:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 22:01, 26 June 2019 (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.