Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grav (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 keep. ST47 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grav (CMS)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 🖋 17:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 17:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't included many sources, because it's a stub, and I invite more experienced users of Grav to contribute. It's already on the List_of_content_management_systems, and in the October_(CMS) article, but those previously linked to a stub describing the city of Grav. It's a very popular new-ish CMS, which makes it notable. It shows up on [1]. There are a few hundred themes and plugins, as shown here: [2]. REH11 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[comment] I have fleshed out the main article with more details, links to tutorials, mentions, awards, and a note about Grav being most popular PHP CMS on GitHub. I'm a wiki newbie, so sorry if I have done things incorrectly I'm just trying to provide some relevant data, I leave formatting to those with more experienced Rhukster (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine whether the SitePoint article helps establish Grav's notability. The discussion is at WP:RSN § SitePoint for Grav (CMS). — Newslinger talk 23:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable enough and has reliable sources. But the article could be fleshed out instead of just listing sources. Nubeli (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 30 May 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.