Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zikula Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zikula

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The result was The result was withdrawn. [1] (non-admin closure). 16x9 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zikula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

non notable software. No significant third party reliable sources. Originally prod and IP removed without comment. 16x9 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC) marginally more notable under its previous name, Postnuke and thus I withdraw my nomination and will be merging postnuke to this article. 16x9 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 16x9 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this kind of thing doesn't usually get discussed by significant third party reliable sources. RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is actually a "reboot" of PostNuke, which was quite notable on its own. §FreeRangeFrog 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment/Question- are you saying that Zikula is a rebranded postnuke and the articles need to be merged into one or that notablity is inherent, which it is not, because zikula is similar to postnuke? 16x9 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect he means it should be merged. A "reboot" is usually a when a new team starts working on a piece of software or when the existing team takes a piece of software into a new direction. Merging seems a reasonable solution if the link is indeed proven. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. I am investigating. 16x9 (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2009 (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.