Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TYPO3 (3rd 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 keep. By unanimous consensus, minus the nominator. Sandstein 20:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TYPO3

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

Basically this should've been deleted perhaps even at the 2nd AfD, as none of this is actually substantial and convincing SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No valid deletion reason given. "Should have been deleted last time" is no grounds for deletion. Whether you like or dislike the result of the second AfD is not relevant. This AfD has been closed and causeless deletion does not follow the rules. --87.123.57.53 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rules were not so strict 7 years ago. What was acceptable then, may be not suitable for encyclopedia now. Pavlor (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD#2 failed to show that the article would not be satisfying the notability guidelines and notability is not temporary per Wikipedia:Notability. Substantial coverage is present and has been provided. But even if it had not - it has, but let's just asume for one moment it would not have been - the state of sourcing in an article is not what notability is based on. This AfD is causeless. --87.123.57.53 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The IPs are not actually clarifying and stating how this is independently notable (including having coversge that is third-party, not simply its own websites or other trivial links) which is what my nomination is for. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read and understood the article? Coverage does not only exist, but it even has been provided. And providing is not even necessary to turn down this AfD btw. If you have a certain question feel free to ask it on the WP:TALK page. An AfD is the wrong format for this. To me it seems like this AfD is close to abuse to say the least. --87.123.37.221 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP WP:NOTTEMPORARY notability has already been proven in the first AfD. Jörgi123 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage is substantial and convincing. --Anna (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other sources (copy/paste) from article on DE Wiki (I think these aren´t in EN article):
- Patrick Lobacher: TYPO3 Extbase, Open Source Press, 2014, ISBN 978-3-95539-070-9
- Patrick Lobacher: Certified TYPO3 Integrator (Aktualisierte 2. Auflage), Open Source Press, 2012, ISBN 978-3-941841-62-8
- Alexander Ebner, Patrick Lobacher, Bernhard Ulbrich: TYPO3 und TypoScript – Kochbuch (Aktualisierte 3. Auflage zu TYPO3 4.3) Hanser Fachbuch, 2010, ISBN 978-3-446-41557-7
- Robert Meyer: Praxiswissen TYPO3. (Aktualisierte Auflage zu TYPO3 4.3) O’Reilly, 2010, ISBN 978-3-89721-961-8
- Denny Carl: Webwelten. Fünf CMS auf PHP-Basis. In: iX – Magazin für professionelle Informationstechnik Nr. 12/2007, S. 54. – Gegenüberstellung von fünf Redaktionssystemen auf PHP-Basis: TYPO3, Joomla, Drupal, Papaya, Redaxo Pavlor (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE-style GBooks search quickly shows multiple entire books devoted to TYPO3, all by different authors. Along with Pavlor's list, it looks like the topic easily passes notability thresholds per WP:GNG. The article is a bit promotional in tone, but that is a matter of editing, not deletion. A solidly notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Many books cover the topic (over 40): [1]. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does appear to be covered by a number of sources, per North America. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. And actually there are even more reputable WP:NONENG sources. The library of my former university alone maintains more than 40 different books on the topic some as old as dating back to 2004. And these only are the German speaking ones. --87.123.59.148 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, I will note that none of these comments or the listed books above are specifying the actual depth of the listed books; there's also no comments addressing the fact there's still in fact primary sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough of reputable, in-depth third-party secondary sources. These are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are books published by respected publishing houses. If you want to, we can discuss each single one of them and you tell us, why you believe it would not be valid. --87.123.59.148 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2016 (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.