Talk:Wagtail (CMS)

Fails WP:GNG notability
Django-CMS has 4,241 stars on GitHub (https://github.com/divio/django-cms) while Wagtail has 3,555 stars (https://github.com/torchbox/wagtail). Both frameworks are actively developed.

I don't think that it is fair to delete the Wagtail page while keeping the Django-CMS page, because it may lead people to choose Django-CMS because of better publicity rather than better quality. Wagtail needs a Wikipedia page in order to be included on the List_of_content_management_systems.

I am not affiliated with Wagtail in any way. I came across it while choosing a Django-based CMS.

Opened an [issue](https://github.com/torchbox/wagtail/issues/2815) regarding this on the Wagtail issue tracker.

Ostrokach (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Numbers of stars on GitHub aren't a measure of notability on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. See the general notability guidelines and guidelines particular to software for applicable criteria for inclusion.
 * Fairness doesn't come into it insofar as there is no entitlement to be listed on Wikipedia, which isn't a publicity or networking service. The measure is whether a topic qualifies to be included, not whether it "needs" to be. Articles aren't maintained to meet the needs of the entities that they're about. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: I am a recent external contributor to both the Wagtail and Django CMS projects.


 * From what I understand, the initial reason why this page has been created is to include this CMS on List of content management systems to improve the relevance and usefulness of this list for Wikipedia users, not for publicizing or meeting a need of the Wagtail project. My personal opinion on the matter is that since this project was released I haven't seen any list of Python CMSes not mentioning it. If there is such a list on Wikipedia, it would be irrelevant if it did not include it.


 * I've tried to add relevant information to the page, backing it by relevant resources. In particular, madewithwagtail.org is the strongest 3rd party source about the project's reach. Its content is user-submitted but curated and edited before publication. Looking at Talk:Django_CMS, 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.


 * The guidelines particular to software were very useful to look at, but I have been struggling to evaluate the reliability of the sources being used in my edits because of the fact that this is an open-source project. In particular, I wonder if publications like awesome-python qualify as a reliable source. For the users of this listing, its reliability and the significance of the projects on it comes from its popularity, which is represented by its number of stars and contributions on GitHub. Those are good measures of reliability in decentralized environments like the open-source community. Coming back to GitHub, some of the information about a given project is under the control of GitHub, not the project author ([stargazers], forks, "Pulse" view, etc). Can those be considered 3rd-party sources?

Thibaudcolas (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)