Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagtail (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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wagtail (CMS)[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a CMS. Lacks sufficient available reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing my comments on Talk:Wagtail_(CMS),

From my point of view this page was initially created to enhance the Python section on List of content management systems. I think adding Wagtail there is relevant, as it is a very popular albeit recent alternative to the other projects on the list. For the separate page however I understand that it was lacking sources, particularly to demonstrate notability. I have added the ones which I think are the most relevant, as well as some (sourced) content on the project’s history. Looking at Talk:Django_CMS (one of the closest projects in this space, easy comparison), notable uses of the software seem to have been used to make notability claims. Not sure how relevant this is but I added a "Notable uses" section for Wagtail as well, with entities that already have their own Wikipedia pages. Those are sourced with the site they refer to, and other sources where available (open-source code of the site for beta.FEC.gov, news article for UPenn).

I'm obviously keen for this page to exist (I contribute to both Wagtail (CMS) and Django CMS). Looking back at my changes, I would like to get more feedback about Wikipedia's stance on using GitHub repositories as sources (for example awesome-python lists Wagtail, and would be considered a reliable source by open-source software users IMHO) and demonstrating notability with notable usages and/or users of a piece of software.

Thibaudcolas (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:40, 22 July 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.