Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globule (CDN)

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 speedy keep. (Not 100% sure if tommylommykins's withdrawn so closing as such - If you haven't let me know. / per SK1. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Globule (CDN)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This a bulk deletion nomination for all of the articles in Category:Apache_httpd_modules except for List of Apache modules.

These articles are all for plugins for the Apache HTTP server. I think don't think they're notable according to wp:nsoft: They're just modules which provide a particular feature to Apache. Some of these pages are quite short... just a declaration of what the module is and what it does... and I would imagine there probably isn't any more to say about them without the descending into writing technical documentation.

Since we already have a list article that enumerates apache modules, I propose that we delete these articles and merge content as necessary into List of Apache modules.

This deletion nomination follows on from a successful nomination for a single Apache module, Apache Rivet (delection discussion here). The outcome of that discussion was a soft delete after no quorum was achieved. tommylommykins (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full list of nominated articles: Globule (CDN) Mod jk Mod deflate Mod gzip Mod lisp Mod mono Mod oai Mod openpgp Mod proxy Mod ssl Mod wsgi Mod php Mod parrot Mod perl Mod python Mod qos Mod ruby Phusion Passenger SuEXEC

I am concerned that the no quorum status of Apache Rivet's AFD discussion devalues the precedent of that article's successful deletion, but I'm not sure what I can do to raise interest in discussing this deletion proposal. tommylommykins (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no reason why a plugin can not achieve notability in itself. Some plugins are more notable and feature rich than individual programs. I've added a 'reliable' source. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, having seen your addition to Phusion Passenger, I have changed my mind and think it is a notable article. This suggests that I may have raised some of these deletion requests in error.

I still think that a fair few of these articles are undoubtedly non-notable on their own (mod_lisp, mod_parrot, mod_oai..) and should be deleted. Perhaps that is a discussion for a separate AFD (and perhaps I should bring more evidence to back my case in that discussion). tommylommykins (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be aware that the original proposal was for a merge into a list article rather than a straight out deletion. I still feel this is appropriate for the majority of these articles (although again, perhaps that is a topic for a more specific AFD.) tommylommykins (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check every plugin listed, some may be suitable for a list or deletion. Perhaps give each page an individual AfD. Maybe there is a discussion somewhere on how to handle plugins. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general software notability guidelines ought to be good enough here. I don't think the pluginny nature of these plugins will has much meaning here. tommylommykins (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - It appears from the discussion above that the nominator, Tommylommykins, wishes to withdraw the nomination. ~KvnG 00:35, 7 March 2015 (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.