Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayan edms


 * 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   delete. I am not taking into consideration the two "keep" opinions: that of Siloraptor, who maintains that the software's alleged popularity amounts to notability even in the absence of third-party coverage, which is at odds with our guidelines, and that of 93.139.135.238 for what I hope are obvious reasons.  Sandstein  06:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mayan edms

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This software does not appear to be notable. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No hits on the Computerworld or InfoWorld sites, no listing at the Enterprise Open Source Directory, no hits on CMSWire.com (which is usually even willing to publish press releases with little modification), the Freecode entry for it was created little more than a year ago, and there aren't even enough people looking for information about it to register on Google Trends. Does not satisfy any notability criteria at this time, WP:USUAL. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Commercial publications pay little or no attention to non-commercial/pure free open source software. LogicalDOC and it's article (which is the basis for the one about Mayan EDMS), suffers from the same lack of recognition from Freecode: 1 month old entry, ComputerWorld: no search results, InfoWorld: 1 marginal mention in an open source awards article, Enterprise Open Source Directory: 0 votes and only 82 views.  The notability standards for commercial software do not apply to free open source software.  Mayan EDMS is the main DMS in use in the permits and regulations agency in the government of Puerto Rico aside from being used worldwide as proof by it's worldwide network of 3rd support providers.  Article has been updated to include this last two references in support for notability.  If getting an article on CMSWire.com is so easy, then it should not be taken into account to rate notability, getting software supported worldwide by commercial entities as well as being used in the public sector should have much more weight.  --Siloraptor (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It may have been true ten or fifteen years ago that "commercial publications pay little or no attention to non-commercial/pure free open source software" but that is completely untrue today. Searches for Python and Django, the open source technologies that Mayan EDMS is based upon, turn up dozens of hits across Infoworld, Computerworld, and CMSWire.com, as do searches for other open source document management systems like Alfresco or Magnolia.  If Mayan EDMS is having difficulty getting this kind of recognition from the IT and open source communities, Wikipedia is not the place to start or cultivate such recognition.  If LogicalDOC has the same notability problems its article should be deleted too.  Note to other editors: Siloraptor appears to be an SPA. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LogicalDOC got a Bossie from Infoworld in 2010. Seems legit? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would certainly give me more cause to investigate thoroughly than anything that has turned up in defense of Mayan EDMS. I haven't taken a close look at these Bossie awards to see what significance they have, so I wouldn't offhand be ready to say that it's notability-establishing. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing and aggregating the popularity, purpose and market penetration of Open Source software vs. Free Open Source software (FOSS vs OSS), Python the language, Django a Python framework and Mayan EDMS a DMS web app. You also seems to be confusing the purpose and exposition of a CMS (what Magnolia is) a front end piece of software to publish content and manage websites hence very visible and where Open Source alternative are quite popular (Mambo, Joomla, Drupal, Mezzanine) and that of a DMS (what Alfresco is) a backend, low visibility (to users) document repository software, a market dominate by commercial enterprise players where Free Open Source (or even Open Source) alternatives are shunned and have very little chance of exposition, that's why you are not able to find mentions of Mayan EDMS or any other true Free Open Source DMS like it in commercial circulations or commercially sponsored web sites.  As the recently added references to the article show, Mayan EDMS is quite popular around the world and with government agencies, that it doesn't show up in commercially driven publications or websites is no surprise and in now way indicative of its notability or assumed lack of it.  The purpose of the Wikipedia article is not to help it's notability as it is already quite well known, a quick Google search for: 'Mayan EDMS' or 'Django based DMS' can serve to prove this point.  Deleting this article would only serve to affect Wikipedia visitors looking for information on non commercial, free open source DMS software.  In regards to the account, this is my first ever Wikipedia account and Mayan EDMS is my first ever article, which is why it may look to you as though this is a single purpose account.  I created it two days ago and have spent more time defending my first article than the time it took to be created...  Whether Mayan EDMS' article gets deleted or not I don't think I would write or contribute to another Wikipedia article seeing that this is what's in store for new users like myself from established but uninformed editors.  --Siloraptor (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to publicize personal IRL details about myself but I will say that I am by no means confused or uninformed about this field. If Mayan EDMS is so staggeringly popular among government agencies around the world then we will shortly have lots of mentions and articles in non-commercial governmental IT magazines and journals, which exist in spades, and won't have to rely on things like these blog links and Google+ links that were recently added for future articles on this product, which will doubtlessly soon be as omnipresent as sliced bread. (In seriousness, if the product fulfills all of the promises made, it will be successful and will become mainstream and this will all be moot in the future.)  And yes, someone who wants to create articles on Wikipedia should expect to spend more time researching and documenting with reliable sources their assertions than it takes to type up those assertions, that's kind of a thing with encyclopedias.  Once you get into the significance of a work coming from it being ideologically "pure" and "true", I'm sorry but you are beyond the pale of what Wikipedia is for. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not asking you to divulge real life details, my previous argument stands on its own as presenting your erroneous conclusions: You confused Open Source with Free Open Source or Free software, you aggregated the search results of heterogeneous terms as proof of lack of notability (Python is a FOSS language, has many search hits and is notable, Mayan EDMS is FOSS web app done in Python but doesn't has that many search hits, conclusion - Mayan EDMS is not notable), mentioned an entry in Freecode of little more than a year ago as a negative argument of notability (what is the expect amount of years an entry in Freecode must age before being considered valid evidence in favor of notability?), you confused heterogeneous software and software types: "as do searches for other open source document management systems like Alfresco or Magnolia" like I explained in the previous entry, Alfresco and Magnolia are completely different kinds of software and saying they are both document management systems is like saying MS SQL server and MS Powerpoint are both database managers, you confused the purpose and meaning of what a CMS is and what a DMS is, you are applying commercial enterprise software notability criteria to a Free Open Source project, the commercial enterprise software notability criteria in itself is not reliable, consistent or properly defined and accepted (Computerworld, InfoWorld, CMSWire and a directory of enterprise open source software), you assumed that LogicalDoc and Alfresco are Free Open Source software when they are not, they are commercial software and stretching the definition they can be said to be Open Source too, but never Free Open Source therefore their notability is in now way indicative of the notability of other DMS software like Mayan EDMS. In regard on your comment about myself, I have no problem 'researching and documenting' sources, but I have to no wish either to spend time 'defending' the notability of a real addition to the pool of information that Wikipedia is with counterparts that do not have a full grasp of the knowledge required for such debate, and comments like "If Mayan EDMS is so staggeringly popular among government agencies around" do not really help demonstrate the seriousness you imply you apply to the argumentative process.  You have shown a general lack of knowledge about the DMS software type and industry but are still willing to debate the issue without said knowledge, this is what I was referring to with the phrase [if] "this is what's in store for new users like myself from established but uninformed editors", you seems to imply I do not want to "spend more time researching and documenting with reliable sources their assertions than it takes to type up those assertions, that's kind of a thing with encyclopedias." you seem to lack the same thing you are commenting about myself. --Siloraptor (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, Siloraptor, to be blunt, arguing the merits of the article as it exists is not likely to help you. You need to prove to us why it is notable, with reliable sources, in such a way that it can be verified.  If Mayan is all that, then don't waste your time arguing as to why it should be considered notable with a lack of evidence to support it, spend your time digging up why it's notable and bring it to us in the form we need.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how you seem to have a perfectly acceptable amount of information to evaluate me and my level of knowledge while the a few sentences you can see which I've written make me too ignorant to evaluate the software in question using all the information that has been presented here and in the article. If waiting until coverage in government IT publications is available and incorporating links to it into the text you've written is too much to ask, the small amount of effort you're willing to go to in making "real additions" to Wikipedia is probably not as valuable as you imagine it to be. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm posting this line so that my silence may not be confused with disrespect, but I have no desire to continue working on the article or it's defense and submit it and my user account to any action you deem appropriate. --Siloraptor (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may misunderstand the situation a little bit: I am a more established user in that I've been working on Wikipedia longer but I do not have the admin flag on my account and I am unable to do anything to your account or the article other than evaluate the claims made and comment and advance arguments based upon my own understanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community practices. I'm pretty sure, if I understand the procedure properly, it's going to be some uninvolved user with the admin flag who will eventually read the arguments and evidence presented here and in the article and make a decision and take actions. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty easy to get a press release in CMSWorld. The one for LD is, indeed, a press release from a commercial interest.  Mind you, press releases don't connote notability - but that Bossie seems to reel it in for LD.  Also, Siloraptor, I direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the existence of one article, in and of itself, does not justify the existence of another article.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy for Siloraptor An additional recommendation - Siloraptor, we should copy the article to a user page under your account (though note that per convention, this shouldn't be done until the deletion discussion is concluded) so that you can continue working on a draft of it and add references to the text as Mayan EDMS becomes more mainstream, so that the material is still accessible to you if the existing article is deleted. This way, once there is enough evidence to establish notability under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it can be copied back into the main article namespace.  Also, you should declare any conflict of interest you have if necessary. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this discussion, I am not opposed to this as a solution. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do as you must, I have no desire to continue defending this article and withhold any opposition or arguments to any action you deem appropriate. --Siloraptor (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Do as you are told to do...Mayan EDMS is the only non-bloated open-source EDMS and it's hard to believe why you want to remove this entry. Otoh, I'm sure if such articles are going to be removed, we'll think twice by the end of the year whether to extend our financial support to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.135.238 (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: To add to what I have said above in case it isn't understood, there is no Wikipedia guideline addressing the approach for assessing the notability of software, commercial or open source. Attempts have been made unsuccessfully because it is difficult to formulate a standard that would conform to the basic principles of independent, reliable sourcing in the somewhat mercurial software world.  If anyone can articulate a standard that would enable notable FOSS to be distinguished from non-notable FOSS using sources that conform to the general Wikipedia guidelines and show how Mayan EDMS falls on the "notable" side, rather than just expressing contempt for the stab I have taken at it, you will probably convince both me and others.  Honestly that is a steep mountain to climb even for someone already familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so really the simplest thing to do is probably to just be patient as valid sources should soon appear if Mayan EDMS is as outstanding as claimed.  But by the way, making threats as the IP address above is doing is one of the most certain ways to not get what you want. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let me say that "to not get what you want" assumption is completely wrong. I use Mayan EDMS, find it's terrific and was pissed after discovering on Mayan EDMS mailing list that the article is going to be deleted...no more, no less. So we are already happy using the free product, but you want to prevent new potential users to find out about it by removing the entry from Wikipedia. If you're so enthusiastic about keeping Wikipedia 'clean', I'm sure you could find much better targets than attacking legitimate and even rare open-source projects providing real value for its customers for free. Otoh, I'm too unimportant that I'd dare to say that my 'threat' has any value...just wanting to express that I do support Wikipedia finding its value by being open, but, otoh, seeing deleting articles about open-source projects based on no valid reason my change my attitude to put my $s to some other open-source projects...fortunately there are many and Mayan EDMS is one of them. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.135.238 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How insignificant you see yourself in the grand scheme of things does not enter the picture. Quite simply, we are not a promotional mechanism.  Please also see WP:VALINFO.  Thank you for understanding. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are as significant as any other editor, you just have to follow the same rules as everyone else and make arguments based on the same policies and guidelines. Even having the admin flag on an account does not make a user some kind of authority, it's basically just the equivalent of a gun license (maybe with a deputy sheriff's badge, since there are a handful of responsibilities that accompany it.)  "Mayan EDMS is super-virtuous in a technical sense and should be advertised" just isn't a valid argument for this community and this project.  It sounds like you would get the best bang for your buck by spending effort and money to encourage publications that fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable, independent sources to review and report on Mayan EDMS, then you get both greater public awareness and a better basis for a Wikipedia article.  But if you're lucky, maybe someone else on that mailing list knows of existing sources that would be notability-establishing... if it wasn't part of the email to request that people search for them, make sure everyone knows.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:20, 17 May 2012 (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.

Software is very notable just do a search for Mayan EDMS in the news, it appears in the front page of mayor software news outlets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.192.193 (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)