Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mambo (CMS)

 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 KEEP. 19 keep votes and 5 delete votes (including nominator). &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Mambo (CMS)
Blatant advertising, similar to its successor Joomla! listed above. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, similarly. Tonywalton | Talk 22:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We may be friendly, but we're not that gullible. / Peter Isotalo 22:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ad. DV8 2XL 22:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP Why don't you IMPROVE these articles instead of deleting every article about Open Source software you don't like? Than continue with typo3, drupal, etc. --Opi27 22:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Joomla! or whatever. The article could use some trimming of hype (spends too much time on awards, yes), but the proggie itself is being used really widely and as such deserves an article. I was under the impression this was just about the most popular CMS right now, ferchrissakes. --Wwwwolf 22:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ' Something to think of for people who consider deleting these two articles: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,170,000 for "powered by mambo". (0.18 seconds) --Wwwwolf 00:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as per above Roodog2k (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If you delete this, then it makes sense to delete the firefox entry as well. It is not a replica of Joomla as Joomla and Mambo are two distinct programs now--Wrobertson 23:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup. Yes, this is an ad.  That said, Mambo is a notable CMS package rating an article.  &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:22:46, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
 * Wait and let develop: Keep! - Joomla is new. The articles will still develop. There is need to work on them - but you can not work on deleted articles! --Sputnik(.de) 07:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Joomla! is new, but Mambo (CMS) was created over a year ago, in April 2004, and has been growing more, not less, ad-like ever since. That's what "working" on it has meant so far. Do you think Joomla! is likely to fare differently, really? But they will both have at least 5 days now on Articles for Deletion, maybe somebody/some people watching this page will dig in and . Improvements while on AfD are invited and welcomed, and they have often been known to save articles. Bishonen | talk 08:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - An article about a product is not automatically an advertisement. This article is substandard, but worth keeping and improving. Also, Mambo has an immense install base, where as Joomla! is only a rebranding (at this point), it would make far more sense to keep this article and just raise the quality. Couldn't the request for deletion be changed to a plea for rewriting?--Choz 07:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - if this is to be deleted, then mark MediaWiki and PHP-Nuke for deletion as well, would you! --Carlsmith 12:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Errm. This is a vote about this article, not the potential deletion of other articles. No one, except someone trying to prove a point would nominate MediaWiki. / Peter Isotalo 12:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article may not be in great shape, but the subject is certainly notable. Friday (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article should be merged with Joomla! updated to reflect that Mambo is now developed by Miro. Mambo is now just another CMS like Joomla!, PHP-Nuke and Drupal, and those aren't candidates for deletion.  Don't merge with Joomla!, separate projects by separate parties should be separate articles.  Shoffman11 18:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: As someone who knows what Mambo is, but doesn't use it / particularly care about it, let me note for clarity: Mambo is established. Joomla is brand new.  Enthusiasm is all well and good, but let's keep the crystal ball in check when we talk about what merges where, etc. &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:58:44, 2005-09-02 (UTC)


 * Delete delete delete this is why God created /. - take it there! Dottore So 01:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Droomla! and then turn into redirect'''. This AfD is complicated by the fact that Mambo recently had its name changed . Are they the same? I have no clue! But definitely don't Delete. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 17:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears they are different things... Due to the recent departure of the old dev team, the programming team at Miro will continue with the development of Mambo in the interim period. Definitely notable. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 17:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP, merge with Joomla!, et cetera. This is getting ridiculous. Can Dottoreso/Tonywalton/Karmosin/DV8 2XL and especially Bishonen please answer WHY mambo/joomla! is the ONLY open source CMS with an AfD?  I personally have tried well over 2/3rds of the ones on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems#Free_and_open_source_software and I find it laughable that you guys want to delete Mambo but not something as unusable (no offense, but really) as boastMachine or PHP-Nuke forks like phpWebSite and Xaraya...  Please, enough.  Mambo has no reason to be deleted.  Perhaps the article should be rewritten, but that's all. Applegoddess 19:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP, I found this article useful. I had read an article about web development, and had no idea what Mambo was...this wikipedia entry gave me an answer.  I think that some fleshing out would be useful though.  pierrerosen 19:50, September 3 2005
 * Keep notable widely used software. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very popular piece of software, and I suspect this nomination was not in the best of faith.  You can't complain that every article about a commercial product is 'advertising'.  Wikipedia has an article about Cap'n Crunch! --TexasDex 04:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep, subject of article is verifiable, notable, and encyclopedic. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 07:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is a very good tool for a quick comparison of content management systems and other software. SGJ 09:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mambo is a product of significance, and is not the same thing as Joomla (something I've never even heard of before). Seems like some of you don't even know what you're voting for... --Zilog Jones 01:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and don't merge. See my comment in the VfD discussion for Joomla!; it applies to both pages. Batsonjay 04:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an important software tool. If Wikipedia didn't have an article on Mambo CMS, it would be clearly lacking. --rasmusdf 13:11, 9 September 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.