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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasClosed early as keep. I've closed this early due to the fact there's no people asking for deletion (besides the nominator) below. A consensus to keep it has been achieved.Computerjoe's talk21:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to have any mention in "multiple non-trivial published works", therefore failsWP:SOFTWARE.Herostratus17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meetsWP:SOFTWARE as a widely used open source blogging platform, and received coverage. For example, through [Information Week]. --Whpq17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's probably the single most popular piece of blogging software. -Obli (Talk)^?17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Even my local broadsheet covered it a number of times. -Mailer Diablo17:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, you're very wrong, it passesWP:SOFTWARE easily: there are several books about the software published by major publishers and therefore not trivial - Douglass/Little/Smith:Building Online Communities with Drupal, phpBB, and WordPress (Apress, 2005); Langer/Jordan:WordPress 2 (Visual QuickStart Guide) (Peachpit Press, 2006). There's also a Japanese bookhere. Please do a bit more research in future before nominating for AfD under software notability. --Canley17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Canley, tremendously popular software. Few pieces of software get Google News hits by the hundred.Oldelpaso18:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - WordPress is probably the most widely used blogging software package in the world. —jammycakes18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It would help the article, and of course prevent this question from ever arising again, if you added the books and articles that you are finding to a "Further reading" section in the article.Uncle G19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, done. --Canley22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This software is used by a myriad of major organizations -- including Harvard, The New York Times and CNET Networks -- and the software's site has an Alexa ranking of 425.Sean Hayford O'Leary01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — What the Fuck? Seriously, whohasn't heard of WordPress? —JeremyTalk05:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Wordpress is free, therefore not transgressing commercial ban requirements. It is popular and of great interest to the general public. Wikipedia should not eschew being a reference for people who want a neutral viewpoint, and to learn about a subject without concerns about 'agendas'.
• Keep, WordPress is one of the largest blogging software in the world. Local presses in many countries have covered the website before. Millions of people use it too, and this is definitely an article that has encyclopedic purposes, and passes notability criteria without any doubt. --Terence Ong_{(C |R)}07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if this failsWP:SOFTWARE thenWP:SOFTWARE is stupid and should be fixed.Cynical12:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep; Folks,this is why crying "there's no multiple non-trivial published works" (or "no reliable sources cited") is a really silly AfD nomination tactic. Everyone with even the most basic Googling skills can easily discern that this is areally freaking famous piece of software. Everyone who has ever investigated which blogware to use probably has heard of WordPress. AFAIK there was some books about WordPress too.Debian PopCon rank of #6926 out of 61035 packages is not something to take lightly (hint: mediawiki1.7 is today at #7722). If this doesn't fulfillWP:SOFTWARE, I don't know what will, and if the subject fulfills the notability criteria, lack of sources essentially becomes a cleanup job and AfD Isn't Cleanup®. In short,if your only complaint is that there's no sources or claims of notability, only nominate the article for deletion if you feel it's very unlikely these will ever materialise. If you get 139,000,000 Google hits, at least consider the possibility that there are good sources somewhere out there. Thank you. Sorry for the rant. I'm getting tired of this sort of nominations. --wwwwolf (barks/growls)16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per everyone above. Please do a little research before you AfD something.WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline/policy, deleting something using that as an excuse is silly imo.Havok(T/C/e/c)10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per the pile-on. Definitely notable and verifiable.MikeWazowski20:29, 24 November 2006 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.