Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backdrop CMS

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus is to keep the article. Despite an over-reliance on primary sources, there are several independent sources (which may have been added after this AfD was opened). There are no longer any external links (they may have been removed or converted to references) and while the text and organization could use some work, consensus is that this page is not overly promotional. ST47 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backdrop CMS[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Backdrop CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still reads like an advertisement, article is littered with external links such as becomes a advertisement page and most of the sourced material is to questionable sites (such as YouTube). Listing for community consideration. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim is that most of the sourced material are "questionable sites". That is incorrect. For example, there are references to a hosting company that provides Backdrop hosting; web development tools that provide Backdrop out of the box; reference to a well-known CRM software CiviCRM that provides integration with this CMS; references to two third-party how-to books; and a reference to the the umbrella organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy (whose page includes links to all the other sister projects). I think only mentioning Youtube is misleading. The article hardly relies on that one reference.
Regarding the claim "still reads like an advertisement", I would appreciate a concrete example. I had already combed through the article to remove anything that read like an ad and made it more neutral. As I read through it again, I do not understand how that claim can still be made. --Nubeli (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through it again now. I still cannot find an example of anything that reads like an "ad". All is factual with references provided.
I'm not clear why the article was nominated straight away for deletion rather taking one of these actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives, such as "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it."
In short, I cannot see how to further improve it as I read it now, but if an example or two is provided so I understand, it can easily be fixed up. --Nubeli (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Original nomination doesn't mention notability but thought I'd mention what I read here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(software), particularly that multiple manuals published independently by independent authors means a "computer program can usually be presumed to be notable". In this case, there are two independent books. --Nubeli (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No interest in trying to assess notability of this but other than the excessive amount of external links I don't see anything that troubles me on the PROMO front with the article at this moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given this feedback, I've removed some external links, only keeping where it seems necessary. Nubeli (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: something irregular here as talk page previously deleted. (Seems I forgot to sign this 18 May 2019 08:32 Djm-leighpark (apologies)) Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article could do with major improvement, but seems notable enough. Greenman (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't understand the complaints against this page. It reads far less like an ad than all the other CMSes. jenlampton (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has anyone bothered to look at all the references? I am not seeing anything close to the kind of in depth reliable source coverage we require to ring the WP:N bell. Most of the refs are affiliated, promotional stuff or PR announcements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope: but then neither has the nom seeming reported the books e.g. ISBN 978-1-4842-1969-0. that should have been found when doing WP:BEFORE and that are found on the link at the top of this page. In fact has not explicitly mentioned WP:N as an issue.
Amazingly these books are also proffered as suggested changes on a new incarnation of the talk page placed there on 21 May. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh! This process is intimidating and esoteric. People keep throwing around acronyms and shortened words that only an insider could possibly know and intentionally or not serves to keep less experienced users from commenting (I've gotten feedback from someone who didn't want to post here for this reason). I'm trying my best to read the pages when templates are included, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Nubeli (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to respond to Ad Orientem. As I mentioned above, when reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(software), it seems clear to me that when multiple manuals are published independently by independent authors means a "computer program can usually be presumed to be notable". I do believe that is the case here. I believe there are other examples of where the article is notable, but that one seems to be the clearest. Nubeli (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the page as seen certainly isn't promotional. Nom rightly hasn't raised notability as an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article relies entirely on non-independent sources. In most cases the lack of independence is very obvious (from the project's own website or its partners), but even the two cited "independent" manuals are by an author who is a contributor to the closely related Drupal project. I see no indication that any truly independent tech media has covered it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're standard of "truly independent tech media" doesn't match that of Wikipedia's. First, it doesn't need to be "tech media". A computer program is presumed to be notable if it is the subject of "multiple printed third-party manuals". Furthermore, you set an impossibly high standard for "independence"; a standard that I do not believe is backed up by Wikipedia's policy (feel free to show evidence otherwise). Drupal is NOT the same as Backdrop CMS. Todd Tomlinson is not in any way involved in organizing the Backdrop CMS project. Just because Backdrop is a fork of Drupal does not automatically mean that everyone involved in Drupal has no independence. If that were true than likely most tech manuals of any computer program would be excluded since the authors are usually involved in one way or another. Nubeli (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it doesn't have to be tech media, but there isn't any other kind of media coverage for this either, so that's not really an effective counterarugment. As for having "an impossibly high standard", there are numerous independent sources that cover technology and many computer programs that can be proved notable by reference to such sources. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to be clearer. For my first point, I meant that Wikipedia doesn't require "media coverage" to be reliable, tech or otherwise. That's why I quoted the guidelines about tech manuals. (When I think of media coverage I don't think of tech manuals.) For my second point, I have not found a Wikipedia policy or guideline that addresses your specific claim of what constitutes an independent author when the author is involved in one of forked projects. There is no evidence that Todd is actively involved with Backdrop CMS, other than writing a couple tech manuals. Drupal is an independent project of Backdrop. Nubeli (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Backdrop_CMS&oldid=899883340"