Talk:FireFTP

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Version 1.0

FYI to the people regularly maintaining this page; version 1.0 is out :) -- Limulus (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I don't think notability of this software has been addressed. The proposed policy and related discussion about software notability is found at WP:SOFTWARE. The current consensus is that download counts do not verify notability. Can "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" be found? Although FireFox itself is notable, as an add-on, FireFTP doesn't qualify as "core product", an alternate sign of notability. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I didn't mean to imply that the download count in itself makes it notable, I merely contributed that factoid along with everything else. Secondly, the criteria laid out at the proposed policy page is far from inclusive. This program strikes me as notable because of several common-sense things: it has a user base, and its design as a Firefox extension currently makes it far more peculiar and worthy of discussion compared to most of those at the comparison of FTP clients (typical Windows FTP clients are boring and pointless to me, too). Firefox Add-ons site recommendation is basically a third-party reference (unless the same person maintains both FireFTP and that web site). The Firefox web site editors do have something of a vested interest in supporting any Firefox extension, but this one still stands out among all other numerous extensions. --Joy [shallot] 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article should ever be nominated for deletion, it really needs the "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" to secure its place. It is a worthwhile effort for someone to find a review or article that has been published about it. Other arguments about notability aren't considered nearly as strong. An opponent might suggest that this article isn't notable in its own right but should be merged into the Firefox article (or Firefox extensions article if there is one). ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FireFTP is notable. It's part of the history of web development as it came along at a time when it was really needed. Use has declined but are you going to start deleting articles for Homesite, Hotbot or Netscape next? Jeffery Thomas 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]