Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikiwiki

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. —fetch ·comms 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikiwiki[edit]

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

This wiki software seems interesting, but I can find very few press or book mentions of it - the most notable one seems to be this Network World article. That article's author is presumably the same Joey Hess who's the author of ikiwiki - which I'd say doesn't detract much from its notability; but still, it's just one article, which doesn't seem like enough. Yaron K. (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote delete it. Of course, it does not follow the wikipedia standards. Please, remove another article. Don't improve it. Just delete it. Finally, there will be just a hundred of articles.... this is the result of a radical application of a policy.--Xan2 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclining towards keep, even though there are few press or book mentions, but a googling on "ikiwiki" indicates that independent blog users are really trying to use it, that there is a Debian package for ikiwiki, meaning that it is established in the advanced user sphere. Unless there are strong policy violation reasons for delete, I think keep and abide is the best thing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 August 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.