Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DasBlog

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 Delete. Nishkid64 13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DasBlog

DasBlog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Looks like a little known free software. Just because it is free, does not mean it is notable. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, just because it is downloadable software does not mean it even belongs here. We are, after all, neither Sourceforge nor Freshmeat. --Dennisthe2 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely Delete It's crap. Definitely won't help to leave it here. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question. How does it related to the BlogX software that it is based on? It appears to be more notable. John Vandenberg 10:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

John Vandenberg - I have updated the entry to better explain the dasBlog/BlogX branch. John Forsythe

• Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:SOFTWARE in any way. Wikipedia is not a software catalogue, and being free doesn't mean it's not spam. CiaranG 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• It is the most popular asp.net blog software being used, also largest XML based, and is as well know as 90% of blog software listed here at Wikipedia, i.e. Subtext, bBlog etc. Most prime contributors are Microsoft employees or MS MVP's, while I would agree it is not WP:SOFTWARE, it is unique as say Greymatter blog also here on Wiki... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.41.206.137 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
• As a matter of comparison, to an existing Wiki listed blog software Subtext, in accordance with SourceForge it has been downloaded around 13,421 times to date, and dasBlog has been downladed around 140,000 times to date, these asp.net blog software engines are rare, so why does Wiki even have any blog software listed given [[WP:SOFTWARE]? I say all or none! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.109.24.199 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Sounds like dasblog is as good a listing as the other weblog software listed in open source, very few are ever going to be WordPress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom8850 (talk • contribs).

Note - Tom8850's only two contributions to Wikipedia, both since the article was nominated, are to add a swathe of linkspam to the DasBlog article, and comment on this AFD. CiaranG 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged: LinkSpam is in the eye of the beholder or Article, Check out the link spam on all the other open source blog softwares here at Wiki,Apache Roller, bBlog, blosxom,Dotclear,Drupal,Elgg,Geeklog,Greymatter,LifeType,Nucleus CMS,Pivotlog,Subtext,Textpattern. Apprantley its ok for these articles, even forums etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.41.206.137 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

While it's understandable that you might feel this particular article has been unfairly singled out, I can assure you that's not the case. You could, if you so desired, familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and use your new account to help out. As you rightly point out, there is a lot of work to be done. Regards, CiaranG 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see why dasBlog does not belong listed among its peers? Blog_publishing_system and Weblog_software make reference as do the features that dasBlog implements such as MetaWeblog. Previously someone mentioned "all or none" and I guess that is a fair point. I think this software has enough of a public impact and history to be included. John Forsythe

At the risk of stating the obvious, it's another single-purpose account. CiaranG 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

CiaranG - What about the context of my comment has anything to do with my account? Other than (stating the obvious here) disagreeing with you. dasBlog is notable asp.net software. We have a larger fan base, greater name recognition and a longer history than many of the other entries listed in Blog_publishing_system. Since you place so much importance on registered accounts I'll have you know that over the past year I have contributed to plenty of entries, contributed to more than one WP donation drive, and been a generally active Wikipedia anonymous user/editor. This was the first time I wanted to start my own entry and thought it prudent to provide some reference to the content for those reading it, not those judging its worth. By no means does WP require accounts to do any of the previous activities. Lay. off. please. - John Forsythe

With all due respect, it's directly relevant, and the comment was for the benefit of the closing admin. Further, as a developer of the software under discussion, you have a clear conflict of interest and should think twice about involving yourself in this AfD, and per WP:AUTO, in the editing of the article. CiaranG 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Google yields over 2,000,000 results for dasBlog. It's a successful, active opensource project, occasionally

breaking into the top 1000 projects at SourceForge /George 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep dasBlog is the leading blog software on the .NET platform with literally thousands if not tens of thousands of installations. Don't believe it, just Google "dasBlog 1.9", "dasBlog 1.8", "dasBlog 1.7", and so on. Just because it's not Linux-based doesn't mean it's not legitimate. I'm starting to see why Wikipedia, once so highly respected, it getting such a bad name... MikeSchinkel 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have to agree with the all or none comment, above. If we decide to delete dasBlog, we should be marking most of the other blog systems listed on the Weblog_software page for deletion, as well. Kenlefeb 11:44, 16 January 2007 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe dasBlog is a worthwhile entry notable for it's active user base, as well as it's very active development status. It is open source non-commercial as well which I believe should be taken into consideration. 70.11.84.3 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If an explanation were needed for the sudden influx of anons, new users and dormant users, it might be found here. I can't imagine who the 'Wikitrolls' refers to though. If anyone wants me, I'll be in my cave. CiaranG 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment ah cave you have verified the reality, Wikipedia really has gotten as bad as I had heard, sad really, what a sacred cow Wikipedia has become... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.28.110 (talk • contribs).
• Merge With all due respect to the nominating admin, it appears that dasBlog is not little known or of little notability. That notwithstanding, I believe all open source blog software’s that are not indisputability notable per WP:SOFTWARE should be merged as subpages to Blog software, including dasblog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.118.9 (talk • contribs).

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.