Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMS Made Simple (2nd nomination)
- 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 no consensus. Whilst a vote count might reveal a clear consensus to "keep", many of the arguments for retaining this page are weak and unsupported by relevant policies. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- CMS Made Simple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Framework is not notable as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article fails to the indicate the importance of the subject. Google search returns few or no reliable sources covering the subject. Books/News/Scholar returns one or no hits.
The article was prod deleted, then restored at DRV, then prodded again, contested, AfD with consensus delete, then recreated by a possible COI user:CMS Made Simple. Let's see if we can really delete it this time. Odie5533 (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, yet another "content management system" software with no showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - seems to be some coverage including winning an award [1] SunCreator (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep: Per SunCreator. Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there are hundreds of packages like this on the market, without significant mindshare. The article is clearly there to try and raise the profile of the software, that is, it's advertising.Mhkay (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are a lot see:List_of_content_management_systems, almost everyone has an wikipedia article. The article is not an advert - and bear in mind this is FREE software - and even if it was 'advertising' that is no criteria for deletion. SunCreator (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We have lots of articles delete. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A CMS that has won awards [1], has over 3/4 million downloads [2], was named one of the top 20 CMS's by a popular CMS resource for two years in a row [3] does have significant "mindshare". Just because it isn't one of the "Big 3" doesn't mean it can and should be discounted. It is a disservice to visitors to limit them to a select few packages instead of providing them with viable options.
- If we worked on publishing a more objective and informative (less like advertising) with more resources discussing CMS Made Simple will that work better? We are willing to work with you to provide the community with what you are looking for. Simply discounting and deleting the article is not showing any objectivity and fairness. We are willing to work with you, but you need to work with us. We sincerely want to work this out.--Tyjobo (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Tyjobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This discussion is not about the content or quality of the article, it is about whether or not the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Thus far, I do not believe the sources shown demonstrate sufficient notability as described in the guideline WP:NOTABILITY. If you are able to show more wp:reliable sources which cover the framework, that would be helpful; though be sure they are reliable. Also, please do not take this discussion, nor the deletion of the article as an attack on the framework. Wikipedia has guidelines for notability, and not meeting those guidelines does mean the framework is bad, or non-notable in a general sense. Wikipedia attempts to create a generally useful encyclopedia, which means that things which are incredibly important and useful within small communities are not always generally notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. From what I have seen, CMS Made Simple seems to be a very useful framework, and Packt has recognized this and awarded the framework. But I think the framework has to receive more recognition before it is included in Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. With past discussions and even some comments here, it was hard to understand what the real issue was. We have gathered quite a few articles, reviews, references about the framework and have a draft of a different article. Sure hope it will work out this time around, especially with all of the effort we are trying to put forth to make it more acceptable. Please expect the change soon. --Tyjobo (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I would always encourage people to expand and better the articles being considered for deletion, this is not the real issue here. Simply listing the sources you have found here will be enough to sway the debate one way or another. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understandable, the article really lacked detailed information any way. Are the articles listed in the new revision sufficient enough? Tyjobo (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reliable sources I see are the Packt awards, the brief mentioning in the Adobe Edge newsletter. In my opinion this does not constitute significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki is about deleting info about framework, which represents paradigm "divide and conquer"(logic and data, arrangement and style). This is the only CMS that can take advantages of "smarty"(templates), "php", "java script"(jQuery), "html and CSS" almost instantly. With CMSMS even average web developer can fulfil very specific needs. Actually it depends on how many different sources have to aprove the same. Peciura (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Peciura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The only reliable sources I see are the Packt awards, the brief mentioning in the Adobe Edge newsletter. In my opinion this does not constitute significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understandable, the article really lacked detailed information any way. Are the articles listed in the new revision sufficient enough? Tyjobo (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I would always encourage people to expand and better the articles being considered for deletion, this is not the real issue here. Simply listing the sources you have found here will be enough to sway the debate one way or another. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. With past discussions and even some comments here, it was hard to understand what the real issue was. We have gathered quite a few articles, reviews, references about the framework and have a draft of a different article. Sure hope it will work out this time around, especially with all of the effort we are trying to put forth to make it more acceptable. Please expect the change soon. --Tyjobo (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is not about the content or quality of the article, it is about whether or not the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Thus far, I do not believe the sources shown demonstrate sufficient notability as described in the guideline WP:NOTABILITY. If you are able to show more wp:reliable sources which cover the framework, that would be helpful; though be sure they are reliable. Also, please do not take this discussion, nor the deletion of the article as an attack on the framework. Wikipedia has guidelines for notability, and not meeting those guidelines does mean the framework is bad, or non-notable in a general sense. Wikipedia attempts to create a generally useful encyclopedia, which means that things which are incredibly important and useful within small communities are not always generally notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. From what I have seen, CMS Made Simple seems to be a very useful framework, and Packt has recognized this and awarded the framework. But I think the framework has to receive more recognition before it is included in Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the articles are being objective. I didn't hold anything back. As you will notice I left other articles and reviews in there that weren't sugar coating the system. Some of them were critical of the system. I left them in there to allow the public to get a full view of the system. I just looked at the wiki article for Joomla (which hasn't had discussion for deletion in quite some time)and the only notable resources are books. The majority of which are Packt books. As you likely know it is difficult to get news organizations (print, video, audio) to cover anything technology related unless it is a blunder or a major security breach. The very high majority of all schooling are unfortunately (for all Open Source projects) focusing on commercial big name products. We didn't go with self-published articles because with the nature of the product it seemed people wouldn't think us to be objective. Tyjobo (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of book publishers and reliable news organizations that cover technology: Friends of Ed/Apress, O'Reilly, McGraw-Hill, Packt, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Peachpit Press, John Wiley & Sons. News organizations: CNET, PCWorld, Network World, Computerworld, Linux Journal, Linux Magazine, PC Magazine, PC Format, etc. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, People I'm really failing to see the issue here. The article maybe does some self promotion (though not directly it seems to mention its key points and links to articles of interest / promotion of it .. its hardly going to mention negative articles but I've yet to come across one) but its a good system that I've been using on customer sites. I recommend the system constantly on a weekly if not daily basis in the Irish webdev community on the Irish Web Master Forum as well as Boards.ie (Irelands biggest social network). I've also used a lot of the other systems mentioned that have their own pages and find them to be awful. Yet they have their own pages. Key features of this system seem to be for me Ease of use of templating / choosing templates / the hierarchy system of pages (which I've not come across with the likes of joomla / wordpress ), User Defined Tags ... and the ACLs. Before you ask I'm not associated with the project apart from being a major fan of it. I've worked on sites for government run groups / multilingual groups using the MLE fork of CMSMS and personal sites. I think the only factor keeping CMSMS down is their lack of investment in promotion of it as its a CMS that blows me away out of the box hence you may not have heard more about it. If you look at the general user response on http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/show.php?catid=1&cat=CMS%20/%20Portals its quite high at 4.1/5. I'm also planning on showcasing the system at an upcoming Open Source Bar Camp in Ireland having done a mini presentation to people at a previous OSSBarCamp which went down very well. I'm using wikipedia a large amount (like half the world) but don't contribute that much I'm afraid to say so hopefully that doesn't weaken my argument. --Forbairt — Forbairt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please review the relevant guidelines (WP:N and WP:RS) and Wikipedia's deletion policy. We aren't here to determine the worth of the framework. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Judging by the references which have been posted, I'd say that it's only slightly notable enough to justify keeping the article; but if kept, it would seriously need some work adding reliably sourced information on it's features and usage, rather than the way the page is laid out now, which does make it look more like an advert than anything... TheChrisD Rants•Edits 17:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable enough. Jeez there are FAs with less notability. 122.107.102.40 (talk) 06:29, 27 October 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.