Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joomla!

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. After discounting widespread sockpuppetry in defense of the article, final vote count stands at 9 delete, 8 keep. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Joomla!
Advertisement isn't a speedy criterion, unfortunately, but please delete this misuse of Wikipedia soonest. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ad. DV8 2XL 18:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Al 18:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertisement (for a newly released software product, so I'm doubtful about notability too). Sliggy 18:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced of this software's current notability; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for the future. Stand by my vote. Sliggy 14:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP this article - if you want to delete this new article about the Successor to Mambo_%28CMS%29, you have to delete this article too: Mambo_%28CMS%29 !!! So there is no "misuse" of Wikipedia. Joomla! is an Open Source and community based project. Many former Mambo-Users announced to follow the Core Developer Team to Joomla!
 * You're right, that one's advertising as well, thanks for pointing it out. I'll nominate it. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * what is going on here? Do you want to delete every article about Open Source software? Than continue with typo3, drupal, etc. - Sorry, but I don't understand it: Why don't you IMPROVE these articles instead of deleting everthing you don't like?????? --Opi27 22:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because we still have a little sense of dignity left. We still want to be taken seriously by more than just Internet anarchists. / Peter Isotalo 23:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand why people would post promotespeak into an encyclopedia and expect others to clean it up. Hmm, Typo3 and Drupal, you say? Checking it out. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, go ahead, nominate all of them! There's also this little proggie called Mediawiki that is being promoted on Wikipedia and the authors are getting money off it - especially due to its exposure through Wikipedia. Go ahead, nominate that too! Completely freaking shiver-inducing, that! --Wwwwolf 23:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Why are we even voting about this? / Peter Isotalo 21:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because nn-bio is a CSD criterion. nn-company isn't. I wish it were. Tonywalton | Talk 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that speedy should be just a tad more flexible. / Peter Isotalo 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Foot! *stomp* Bullet! *tink* Gun! *clank* Aim! *gnnh* Fire! *BLAM* --Wwwwolf 22:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, please, delete. Tonywalton | Talk 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment still delete as non-notable, unless something is forthcoming to say why this is a particularly notable and "pretty damn important" Content Management System amongst all the others. Tonywalton | Talk 23:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, the folks behind Mambo and Joomla have recently been through several, not very damn nice wars and fights and whatnot regarding the ownership of the Mambo code. (You could make a really informative article on those fights alone. Lots of interesting stuff.) Mambo's descentants (Mambo, Mambo's GPL version, and now this travestry) are being used on zillions of sites. There's no way to deny that. What they want to call that codebase any particular day, well, that's an issue that just has to wait. So, I would rather vote for merge to either this article or the other, or keep both. If people take the "kill them both, let God sort them out" attitude, that's a bit too harsh in my opinion. --Wwwwolf 23:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge from Mambo (CMS). Mambo and its descentants are pretty damn important CMSes in this day and age. --Wwwwolf 22:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dottore So 02:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mambo is certainly a notable piece of open source software, and I expect its derivatives (particularly since this one has most/all of the dev team) will at some point be notable. I'm not convinced that it is currently.  &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:21:43, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
 * Keep! Never be to hasty: Joomla is new - But has a bigger community power than Mambo. You will not be able to work on this article, if you delete it. The article will just reapear and all work will be done twice - so why? Just wait two weeks and be patiant, please! --Sputnik(.de) 07:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! --Holmi 09:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Or delete the entries on all of the wiki software, etc., etc., as well. 212.101.64.4 10:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep And merge into Mambo, along with Joomla. This isn't a company advert.  It's about a piece of software that happens to be free, open source, and widely used. Friday (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, since it's been edited to something non-ad-like, and I have a soft spot in my heart for open-source stuff. It would be good to have something written about the "zillions" of sites this software supposedly supports, though. Fang Aili 14:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - The new content is a good improvement and looks encyclopedic, but the subject matter doesn't look notable. - C HAIRBOY 14:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think if Wikipedia can have articles for 8 forks of PHP-Nuke, then it should have an article about a fork of Mambo. The forum at [Open Source Matters] has had 3211 members join in three weeks, so don't tell me Joomla! doesn't have a large number of people following.  I think it is Wikipedia worthy.  Furthermore, I don't see why the article should be deleted because it list features, XOOPS, PHP-Nuke, and E107 all list their features and those aren't candidates for deletion.  I think this Bishonen just doesn't like Mambo or Joomla! because he nominated both of these articles for deletion, yet other open source CMS articles haven't been nominated for deletion. Shoffman11 19:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, *I* nominated Joomla! for speedy delete because initially it looked thoroughly like a corporate advertisement, open-source program or not. (I didn't know 'advertisement' wasn't a speedy criterion at the time.) --Fang Aili 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Advertising alone does not make something deletable. This is certainly notable, so it could do with improvement, but do not delete it! &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 17:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and no merge - seems like a fairly significant piece of software that is even featured on a Slashdot article. Maybe the old revision of the article sounded too advertisement-like and unencyclopedic?—Tokek 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge, Joomla! is the new name of Mambo - http://www.mamboportal.com/content/view/2029/2/ Applegoddess 18:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but don't merge. Joomla and Mambo may well become very different things. Also, even if Mambo itself disappears, an entry for it (Mambo) should remain. rlongstaff 00:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but don't merge. Joomla and Mambo are very different things. I think all the CMS's should be listed. Kf4bdy 08:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but don't merge - Joomla! is not the new name of Mambo they are separate products. While Joomla 1.0 will to a large degree be the same as the current Mambo release the two projects will diverge into separate products in the (near) future. This article is being updated and no longer looks like an advertisement.  It just needs a little TLC.  To delete this would be wrong as Joomla! will be a major player in the CMS world and no other CMS has been put up for deletion. Johnny Boy 08:55 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt the earth: Advertising.  That's all we need: advertising.  Wikipedia does not allow ads for free products (WP:NOT Freshmeat.org), commercial products, arts councils, bands, or anything else.  Salt the earth because of the hosiery parade above.  Geogre 13:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep in current format. The first attempt was nothing but an ad, but the changes have improved the article. Wikipedia is not a book. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "current format?" At this moment in time, it's back to advertising.  If you're asking that we revert to the cleanest version, then protect it, just so that we can preserve a mention of Yet Another Open Source Program (and a management one at that), I think that's too much, too far.  Feature lists are not content.  Claims about how it will solve all my problems are not encyclopedic.  Concentrate on the few facts, on the significance.  If there isn't any, then realize that an encyclopedia is not the right place for this.  02:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete the following: Mambo_%28CMS%29 Typo3 Geeklog Drupal Civicspace Php_nuke Wordpress Tikiwiki Mediawiki Pmwiki SugarCRM Windows Linux Redhat Fedora_Core I could go on but I think I have made my point. At what point do you draw the line. Before you know it, you have deleted every article on Wikipedia because they MIGHT have some sort of advertisement function. Kf4bdy 23:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between a potential and actual ad. This is an actual ad.  As for the false dichotomy you present, no thanks.  Those others are NPOV.  The votes are about the article, not the potential article, not the ideal article, not the value of the subject of the article, necessarily, the virtues of the subject, etc.  Geogre 02:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Point being that there are many that disagree that this article is still an ad, including the person that AFD'd the site, see the talk page. According to the deletion policy, articles that just need help are not candidates for deletion. Therefore, comments to the potentiality of the article are valid and the virtues of the subject matter are to be taken into consideration. --Wrobertson 05:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, since IIRC all the lead-developers left Mambo and formed this. If Mambo was worthy of an article I'm sure this one is too, even if it needs rewriting to conform to NPOV. --TexasDex 03:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is a very good tool for a quick comparison of content management systems and other software. SGJ 09:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and don't merge. I agree with Stephanos Geogios John immediately above me. In fact, Wikipedia has the unique abiilty to be the best   way to compare and contrast CMS software due to the rigorous community input. Including this type of software should not be discouraged on Wikipedia; it should in fact be encouraged. Also, forks in open source projects are extremely important. It is highly likely that the two packages will quickly begin to become sufficiently different to force users to have to look somewhere (I think it ought to be here) to find a careful articulation of the differences between the forks.  Thus, don't combine.  (Oh, and of all types of open source projects to include, it seems CMS systems are pretty important, given the number of people / companies who build sites using them.)  Batsonjay 04:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the article has good info on Joomla. It is no better or no worse than entries on other CMS entries.

Note:
I edited this article to have it more encyclopdian - I hope this is an improvement to prevent deletion. I still can not understand, why you guys didn't try to improve it :-( --Opi27 22:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added content in hopes to keep it also. This event appears likely to be significant in the history of Open Source and should be kept active in order to capture events as they happen. If it later proves not to have been, you can alway change or remove it then.--207.212.165.197 22:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From Replies_to_common_objections:
 * "Writing glowing articles on one's own company (...) is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view."


 * Keeping this in mind, as well as the fact that I highly doubt it was one of Joomla!'s developers that wrote this article (all it took was one mention on Slashdot) I do not think the reason cited is a valid reason for deletion. Adding an NPOV tag and letting others fix it would have sufficed. --TexasDex 14:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.