Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefox extensions (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefox extensions

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

The list could never cover the wide expanse of addons available for Firefox and other Mozilla products. mono 16:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IINFO there are tens of thousands of addons available with a few thousand created every week. CTJF83 chat 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an uncompletable list. shoy (reactions) 19:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to list only those extensions that have non-redirect Wikipedia articles per WP:LSC and WP:WTAF. This would only be "indiscriminate information" or "incomplete" as claimed if we attempted to list all extensions, which would be bad for any number of other reasons. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A decent proposal, but how do you intend to do that with IPs and new users? CTJF83 chat 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same way it's been being done—imposing this requirement is only difficult the first time dozens or hundreds of non-article entries are removed, and that's already been done. There's no reason to suspect an imminent overwhelming flood of unbluelinked list entries. —Korath (Talk) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, not a new article or current event. CTJF83 chat 01:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could, but it does not. As noted by Rurik (talk · contribs) on the talk page: "The eligibility requirements are laid out in the article source. An extension has to have its own dedicated article to be included here. Therefore, it must meet the notability requirements of an article. That keeps the thousands of addons from being listed here." Thus, it appears to meet WP:SALAT. In response to Ctjf83 (talk · contribs), the same way we do it with any list article; judging by the edit history, this one has not been any more of a problem than is typical, and perhaps even less. Disclosure: I have contributed to the nominated article. --Geoff Capp (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have a nice Category Category:Mozilla Firefox add-ons.... CTJF83 chat 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is not redundant to this annotated and non-alphabetically sorted list. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs an inclusion criteria that is all. For example 100,000 downloads or a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing wrong with limiting lists to notable entries. For example, WP:SALAT#Lists of people specifically says that selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). — Rankiri (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What one person deems notable is different from another. This is a subjective list and could possibly lead to people adding and removing entries based on their own POV if it hasn't already. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After further looking at the article, it looks reasonable enough to keep. It's best to have an edit notice on the talk page with criteria just so people know why an entry should or should not be included if it hasn't been done already. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' appropriate list of major software. Does not appear indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Concurring above. Any WP list page of just about anything will by necessity have to be incomplete or require some defined inclusion criteria. I would strongly say that a guideline needs to be set to include criteria on every list page (an example: List of notable asteroids). In this case, popularity, official recognition, and/or media coverage are perfectly reasonable standards for this and future lists - the standard should simply be set openly. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:48, 7 April 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.