Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS
- 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. StarM 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Symphony CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No references to third-party coverage of this product despite tags for more than three months. Non-notable product. Delete. Bongomatic 04:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the original developer of Symphony. I'm currently looking into rewriting this article to conform to the wikipedia's standards.Chaoticpattern (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been updated. Please review. Chaoticpattern (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update to nomination. The rewrite of the article still does nothing to demonstrate thenotability of the subject. There continues to be no significant coverage in reliable indepenent sources. Bongomatic 20:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I have followed other examples of content management pages and I believe I have provided more than adequate references, at least based on what I've seen: Radiant (software), ExpressionEngine, Textpattern. Either the aforementioned articles are also inadequate, in which case should also be nominated for deletion or there is a particular bias toward this particular article. Please advise. Chaoticpattern (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No third-party reliable sources. To address Chaoticpattern's specific concerns, I'd say all of those other articles could and probably should be nominated for deletion also, at least as far as the information in the article shows. Radiant has a single third party review linked, but I'm not convinced it is a reliable source. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find the notion that systems such as Textpattern and ExpressionEngine should be nominated for deletion a little alarming. I don't know the specific numbers but sites powered by these systems should range in the hundreds of thousands if not more. I feel that their user-base might not appreciate it. However, giving them leniency would prove that there is a bias against this article. I think these should be under review too: Django (web framework), Typo (software), Frog CMS, TYPO3 and MODx. Perhaps the very definition of CMS should also be under review: Content management system Chaoticpattern (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bias has nothing to do with it. I tagged this article approximately one month after its creation while patrolling new pages. Three months later, I nominated it for deletion. I don't read articles on related topics just because one comes up on new page patrol (though I would encourage JulesH or anyone else who finds articles that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines to nominate or propose them for deletion or speedy deletion). Wikipedia is not meant to be a competition of who can get articels on non-notable topics included without being nominated for deletion--the fact that some have not been deleted yet (or have survived AfD discussions) is not grounds for inclusion of others. You may wish to read WP:AADD and WP:OSE. Bongomatic 16:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I could not find any reliable secondary sources establishing any notability. Note that "other stuff exists" is not a valid keep argument. If other articles have similar problems, then they will be dealt with in due time. MuZemike (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (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.