Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki extension

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 MediaWiki#Extensibility. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki extension

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

IP editor 192.76.8.80 has made an edit request for this AfD to be filed. I am fulfilling this request on their behalf. Their rationale is as follows:

I am unconvinced that the topic of MediaWiki extensions has any independent notability outside of the topic of MediaWiki. The article sourcing as it stands is in a terrible state, I did a WP:BEFORE search and was unable to find much better. Over half the references here to primary sources, mostly other WMF wikis. We have comments in WP:TFD Discussions, bugzilla reports, random pages on Meta, Mediawiki Categories and the Mediawiki manual all being used as sources here, all of which are both primary and user generated sources. Almost all The remaining sources seem to consist of papers where a developer is writing about a specific extension they have written for Mediawiki, again I'm fairly sure that most of this would count as primary sourcing (because it's the developer writing about what they've done) but more importantly these are only examples of specific extensions, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, discussion of the extensibility of Mediawiki as a topic. ~~Perhaps it would be sensible to selectivley merge some of the content on specific examples of extensions to MediaWiki#Extensibility?~~

—Sirdog (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the suggestion to merge, because most of the content is already in MediaWiki#Extensions. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MediaWiki#Extensibility. I don't like the implicit "we can promote ourselves" exemption to the notability requirements and I believe we should treat promotional content like this written by groups of COI editors (pretty much all of contributors to this article are heavily involved on a volunteer basis with this so-called "WikiMedia Organization") as the unencyclopedic content that it is. The nominee has convincingly established how this doesn't pass the GNG and even if it did the sourcing is questionable to the point that I'd still prefer a redirect until someone has a better article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom & Chess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per the convincing arguments above as the suggested target is more suitable than the current content.--Mvqr (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, and the above discussion makes a solid case.. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2021 (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.