Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MODx


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

MODx

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources 16x9 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * Keep. Has received an award from an independent reliable source.  It may not be the most important award ever, but it seems enough to keep this framework to me. JulesH (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/question - Does the awards have to be notable for it to extend notability to the article? If someone where to ever give me a bannerstar for being such a great Wikipedia do I got to have my own article? I mean Wikipedia is notable, but are bannerstars, etc? 16x9 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say it has to be awarded by or reported in a reliable source, which is the case here. Beyond that, the more notable the award is the more notability it gives to the recipient, but as a baseline level, reliable sourcing is all we need, I'd say.  Wikipedia barnstars, as an example, would not normally be reported by a reliable source, so wouldn't confer reliability. JulesH (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a poor article, but the same might be said of most Wiki articles on web CMS, and individual applications in particular. MODx is in active development and has a loyal following - if deleted the article will be replaced by something that may be no better.

There are limitations in a Wiki citation/no original research policy in that it depends on detailed evaluation and comparison being published elsewhere. In a fluid environment with a proliferation of different options that would require somebody to get to know and use a number of different types of CMS. Few people have the time, skills or inclination, and as a result published references are either very superficial, written by somebody who is familiar with one CMS and an advocate of it, or possibly someone who is irritated because they could not even get it to install. Sources are mainly the website of the project itself. The nearest one can find to objective review is a comparison site such as opensourcecms.com where MODx gets a high rating (the only one with higher has relatively few people rating) but the supporting text covers less than two lines. Or the throw away remark about MODx on cmscritic.com.

My understanding is that MODx is particularly favoured by those who need to customise websites eg for database purposes because the modular approach means that they can modify behaviours without hacking the core. No, it doesn't explain that in the Wiki article. And I'm not qualified to edit the article myself because I've just spent a few hours trying to choose an open source CMS, which is what brought me here!

I think that the present cautions on the article are sufficient - sooner or later somebody will come along who can make a better job of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated and edited the content for content and style which is hopefully an improvement over the previous entry. I can certainly see how the original editor marked the article for deletion based on the original content and few external resources. Now however there are literally thousands of articles, blog entries and reviews all over the web.

Major corporations have deployed MODx and rely upon it as a critical piece of their IT infrastructure, and there is a pending press releases to attest to this coming from a publicly traded company. MODx is in use globally, has multiple books written with more in development and serves millions of page views monthly to tens of thousands of visitors, and I would sincerely argue it deserves to maintain listing in Wikipedia.

Further to this point, the judges for the 2007 Packt award alone have the credibility to prove that MODx is a noteworthy subject. And finally the 2007 Packt award is not simply a "bannerstar" as seems to be implied by the original editor who marked the article for deletion. The project received $2000 in cash to help fund ongoing development. If that's insignificant as claimed by the editor, I surely would personally appreciate receiving weekly insignificant awards from the editor via Paypal! Rthrash (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Per discussion here Reliable sources/Noticeboard the reliability of packt has been questioned. 16x9 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.   —16x9 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on what makes a project "notable" but I know that MODx has been featured on some very notable websites such as Ajaxian and NETTUTS. --ANoble (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - If MODx had gained attention in reliable sources, it would be worth keeping the article. Since the time the article was nominated for deletion, Rthrash was able to improve the article somewhat, though not enough to show notability, in my opinion. For completeness, I should note that the description of MODx in Water and Stone's CMS survey (Ref. 8) is far from uniformly positive: "This system showed more mixed metrics than any other in the survey. MODx picked up the 'Most Promising CMS' nod at the Packt Awards in 2007; yet oddly, outside MySpace, MODx has been unable to build much show of support. Moreover, while the system has solid search engine rankings, it was the big loser in the Alexa rankings in our survey. Perhaps even more disturbing is that MODx was the only system in survey whose user ratings declined during the test period. It looks to us like MODx is managing to attract attention but failing to convert the attention into users. Does MODx risk slipping into irreversible decline or will they manage to capitalize on the many advantages they have in placement? If they are to make a go of it, they will need to repair their user ratings and improve their performance in goodwill indicators."Our article on Packt, the organization that gave MODx the award in 2007, is currently proposed for deletion via WP:PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Against that, MODx is rather more 'notable' on most criteria than a number of the examples of web CMS in the Wiki article on the subject (in the paragraph on history). Ironically, one of the criticisms of MODx that I have read in a number of sources is that the MODx team are not good at self publicity, including their own website. If the criteria for inclusion in Wiki is number of mentions elsewhere there is a real danger of doing exactly what it is desired to avoid, which is to provide a vehicle only for the self-publicists. The criterion that I think that people are really struggling for is whether the software in question is 'interesting' - a subjective measure which is precisely the problem.

Also, for consistency taking down the MODx articles probably implies deleting most of the other articles on individual CMS which seem to me a lot less notable than MODx. Not to mention a great deal else, I suspect, so it is important to be clear as to the reasons. MODx is at least different from its rivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. As a software engineer, I would say MODx is noteworthy, and that it's hardly an obscure project in a corner of the Web. Reliable sources, however, may be a problem. A quick Google search got me two reviews that may or may not qualify, one from TechRepublic, another from Linux.com . That's not the New York Times, but ... Equendil Talk 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep I belive the issues with Notability and Reliable Sources have been addressed with the recent edits. Discussion follows: Note: the following relate to revision from 00:42, 1 February 2009

I apologize for not being entirely Wikipedia savvy and likely failing on some protocol, nomenclature and formatting points, but I am making every best effort to address the concerns above in a factual, non-biased manner. I would also like to thank the above editors/commentors for greatly improving the quality of the article through this discussion process.

As to the Water & Stone publication cited as supporting deletion, just because it listed some negative factors including few social media outlets, does not inherently make that non-notable. Since the survey's publication, the drawbacks have been address and the references to the previously lacking external indicators have been added to the article. (See Translations and Community section) Alexa is not an unbiased gauge of website popularity since it requires the installation of a Toolbar in order to track traffic. This toolbar is not available to Macintosh users, nor is it installed by default with any browsers. Additional evidence of Notability can be found in the same section, where community-driven efforts of establishing native-language support resources in non-English speaking countries are cited. (See Translations and Community section)

Would an indicator of Notability include publicly acknowledging use of MODx by Notable organizations and companies count? If so these sources have also been added to the article including sites managed by MODx that themselves are included in Wikipedia. (See Usage section) These include The National Portrait Gallery in England, an XO company standardizing on MODx (XO being a publicly traded company that counts half the Fortune 500 amongst its clients), numerous institutions of higher learning, and UltraEdit.

Further my understanding of Reliable Sources includes scholarly publications by institutions of higher learning. Surely publishing entire public and intranet sites with thousands of pages by colleges and universities satisfies this benchmark. If not then News Organizations are defined as Reliable Sources. CBS owns TechRepublic.com which reviewed MODx. This has now been likewise noted on the article.

Would referencing Press Releases by Notable companies included in Wikipedia that mention 1) use of, or 2) services based on, or 3) partnerships with MODx count as Reliable Sources and/or provide evidence of Notability (if further evidence is deemed being needed)?

If the above measures do not count towards resolving the objections raised about Notability or Reliable Sources, I'll keep plugging away at revising the article until it meets the standards. Thanks again for helping make this a better article that meets the Wikipedia standards. Rthrash (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Note additional updates made and recognition now is in chronological order. Updates include not altogether flattering items including better explanation of Secunia vulnerability tracking and an except that was critical of MODx from the Water & Stone survey Rthrash (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm certainly not a subject expert, but I think the reviews and other sources good enough by our standards.DGG (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely enough used and known CMS to merit an article  ¨¨ victor   falk  09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm with DGG--I find this adequately sourced.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:11, 2 February 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.