Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coppermine Photo Gallery (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 redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software. Sandstein 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coppermine Photo Gallery

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

Non-notable software. There's no doubt that this is used a lot, but I'm not seeing any of the editorial coverage required by WP:NSOFT#Inclusion. It's mentioned in a number of books, some by reputable publishers, but they're all just cursory and/or obligatory mentions in all-inclusive how-to manuals. The first AfD on this was ten years ago, when our standards are lower. If that AfD were re-closed today with the existing arguments, I'm pretty sure it would be closed as delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software per Noyster. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software : Noyster (talk), 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zenphoto is more notable than Coppermine Photo Gallery, per talk:Zenphoto. Since the consensus for the more-popular software of Zenphoto was to redirect to a listing of image-gallery softwares, then this should apply to both Coppermine Photo Gallery and Gallery Project as well, especially since Gallery Project is no longer in active development. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenphoto (2nd nomination) Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2018 (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.