Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Symphony CMS
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (resulted in delete)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been recreated (albeit substantially expanded, I'm informed) after a deletion discussion resulted in its deletion. Notwithstanding any expansion, the current version does nothing to demonstrate that there is any significant coverage of the product in reliable sources that are independent of it. Bongo  matic  17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * http://symphony-cms.com/showcase/
 * Not independent


 * http://www.netimperative.com/news/2009/february/westminister-council-hires-airlock-for-site-revamp/?searchterm=airlock
 * Passing mention only


 * http://www.franklinrae.com/viewpr.asp?id=524
 * Press release, not reliable source, not independent


 * http://www.nmk.co.uk/articles/1091
 * Passing mention only


 * http://groups.dowire.org/groups/newswire/messages/post/3hnH7VVuIRXkGUdPnQC4AI
 * Not significant coverage (mentioned once), not reliable source


 * http://www2.brent.gov.uk/egr.nsf/WebViews/Local+Authorities+-+Website+Ratings+and+CMS+software+in+use!OpenDocument&Start=4.21&Count=60&Expand=4.31
 * Not significant coverage (mention in a list, not discourse)


 * http://airlock.com/news/
 * Not reliable source, passing mention only, not independent


 * http://www.atomised.coop/ourwork/ethos-public-relations/
 * Dead link


 * http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2496107
 * Not coverage


 * http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2505675
 * Not coverage


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/heilemann/sets/1557062/
 * Not reliable source


 * http://archive.overture21.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=457
 * Not independent


 * http://archive.overture21.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=959&page=1#Item_38
 * Not independent


 * http://archive.overture21.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1047&page=1#Item_19
 * Not independent


 * http://chaoticpattern.com/article/symphony-2-beta-release/
 * Not independent, not reliable source


 * http://symphony-cms.com/blog/entry/symphony-20-lands/
 * Not independent


 * http://symphony-cms.com/downloads/
 * Not independent


 * http://nick-dunn.co.uk/article/symphony-as-a-data-preservation-utility/
 * Not reliable sources (blog)


 * http://casadelewis.com/entry/dynamic-image-placement-in-symphony/
 * Not reliable source (blog)


 * http://www.westminster.gov.uk/
 * No coverage of subject whatsoever


 * http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/multi-platform/comment/blog-how-battlefront-stood-out-in-the-online-jungle/2018440.article
 * Not significant coverage (mentioned once in passing), not reliable source (blog, not news section)


 * http://www.heineken.com/
 * No coverage of subject whatsoever


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/
 * No coverage of subject whatsoever


 * http://www.roadtov.com/
 * No coverage of subject whatsoever


 * http://secunia.com/advisories/31293/
 * Not independent


 * http://symphony-cms.com/community/discussions/393/
 * Not independent


 * http://symphony21.com/requirements/
 * Not independent


 * http://www.cmsdesignresource.com/cms-list/symphony/
 * Not independent


 * http://www.cmsmatrix.org/matrix/cms-matrix/symphony-cms
 * Not significant coverage


 * http://sixrevisions.com/web-applications/10-promising-content-management-systems/
 * Not significant coverage (one paragraph)


 * http://designm.ag/resources/cms-recommended-by-readers/
 * Not significant coverage (two reader comments)


 * http://www.webdesignbooth.com/20-promising-open-source-php-content-management-systemscms/
 * Not significant coverage (one paragraph)


 * http://www.openjason.com/2008/02/23/50-content-management-systems/
 * Not significant coverage (one paragraph)


 * http://www.libhound.com/web-development/content-management/free-and-excellent-cms-that-you-probably-want-to-try
 * Not significant coverage (one paragraph)


 * keep Symphony is a widely used platform with an active community. There are a number of sources cited in the entry which serve to back this up. The site is used on heineken.com, westminster.gov.uk, BBC News, various sites for Virgin Media, forward.com and many others. It is in active development. I can see no reason for the deletion of this article. Joseph Denne 21:52, 17 August 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.64.179 (talk)  — 87.194.64.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Being used on notable websites is not the same as being notable. There are lots of non-notable products used in the creation of lots of notable things. You have never heard of the brand of Ethernet terminators used in the server room of Amazon.com, a notable web site, yet the Ethernet connector company (and its line of excellent connectors) is non-notable.
 * There does not appear to be any significant coverage of this (possibly excellent and widely used) product. Bongo  matic  23:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Define significant. There is a lot of what I would consider significant, coverage. I would also argue that coverage itself is not the sole requirement for an item in wikipedia to be considered significant. The technical advances that this system makes for example should be enough to warrant the entry. Then there's the community, whose membership numbers in the thousands... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.64.179 (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep I'm not convinced there's a one-to-one relationship between coverage and notability. As the current and past deletion records for this entry have argued, the fact that there is plenty of coverage of Symphony of various kinds around the web does not necessarily mean that the system is notable. Conversely, however, the fact that you don't deem any of the coverage significant, or that you question whether it demonstrates Symphony's notability, does not necessarily mean that the system itself is not notable. Symphony is notable in the landscape of Content Management Systems for many reasons, perhaps the most important being that it is the most widely used—and maybe the first—open source CMS implementing the W3C's XSL Transformations as a templating layer. And I'm not convinced your argument about ethernet connectors is wholly applicable. What makes Mediawiki notable? Its role in defining and popularizing the wiki format? The fact that it powers Wikipedia? I'd say both. And if you apply the same standards to systems like Symphony, Wordpress, or Drupal, I think the conclusion is that they are notable enough to be kept. Craigzheng (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaking notability for WP:Notability. Wikipedia has WP:GUIDELINES on inclusion that (contrary to your opinion) directly reference "coverage"&mdash;indeed "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent" of the subject. Please review these guidelines.
 * The Mediawiki article is poorly sourced&mdash;especially when given the wealth of coverage it has received. But even were it not, everyone here is a WP:COI editor with respect to it&mdash;it would survive even a valid AfD nomination. Wordpress has received extensive third party coverage in reliable news sources (not that they are cited in the article). I don't automatically consider (and I don't know that my view represents WP:Consensus on this) manuals / how-to books about a technology to qualify as "independent" coverage of that technology. Drupal is also atrociously sourced (there may be better sourcing out there, and the sheer number of full-length books on the topic is somewhat suggestive).
 * But beyond the comparison to Mediawiki, Wordpress, or Drupal, the consensus is that the existence of similar articles is not a reason to keep an inadequately sourced article. See WP:Other stuff exists and the links to be found there. Bongo  matic  00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all fair. But note, from the article on WP:Notability: "... it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft" and "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Clearly, there's been a significant effort made to improve the references for this article in the last six months, and I believe that, given more time, notability can be satisfactorily established for this article. Craigzheng (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but despite the effort, no significant coverage has been identified. Moreover, I have done a search for such, and been unsuccessful.
 * Generally, you are cherrypicking the provisions of the guideline without reference to it as a whole. The previous AfD included other attempts to find sources (see comments from me, Chaoticpattern&mdash;who despite vested interest, failed to find anything&mdash; and MuZemike) regardless of the state of the article. The criteria are clearly not met (something you implicitly acknowledge).
 * It is customary, during an AfD discussion, to provide specific references that bolster claims of notability rather than say that it can be established in the future. See WP:CRYSTAL. Bongo  matic  01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the "criteria are clearly not met," nor is it something I've acknowledged. I think these notions of significant coverage and of notability are to some extent subjective (which is fine... all things are), and what I'm acknowledging above is that you don't believe the criteria have been met. The intent of my comment was to raise the possibility that the article could be developed such that it could pass your notability threshold. As for providing specific references that bolster claims of notability, I believe the article provides many of those. The issue is that notability in this case is implied and is contextual. There may not be an article out there in a prominent publication that says "Symphony is notable because of X and Y," but in the context of web software, content management systems, web technologies, and the like, it is possible to glean from the sources provided that Symphony is a significant platform that has made some substantial technological innovations. Craigzheng (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep Google shows 540 links to symphony-cms.com. How do you define significant coverage? And why does a something need to have gained an arbitrary amount of "coverage" to be classed as significant? Doesn't this stance undermine the point of an encyclopedia? You know... education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.36.114 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC) — 80.169.36.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:ATA generally, WP:GHITS specifically. Totally irrelevant. Bongo  matic  03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disclosure. I have noted the existence of this AfD and solicited input from every editor (other than those who have already opined here) who opined at the previous AfD or contributed to this article. If I have missed out anyone, please let me know&mdash;the intention was to be comprehensive and unbiased. Bongo  matic  03:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) as recreation of deleted material. The issues were not addressed from the previous AFD. MuZemike 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that DGG, an administrator whose opinions I trust, said (referencing the deleted article) that the new article is significantly different, and removed my speedy nomination. So his view is that speedy closing is not applicable in this case. Nonetheless, the votestacking reeks and the non-valid arguments are annoying. If you have a direct rationale for either deletion or keeping, can you please offer it? Bongo  matic  03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, perhaps this needed more discussion at AFD. However, I think we're just playing the same game we did last time. It's like tyring to fix a bad door when you find that the beams supporting the door is the problem. MuZemike 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes. Just as it was eight months ago, I still come up with nothing reliable. MuZemike 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are three recent and reliable sources: Local Authorities - Website Ratings and CMS software in use, Google-look for Council website, social networking and local gov and How Battlefront stood out in the online jungle. There are now 34 references no the article page - a huge improvement from the original version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.64.179 (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ←These three references fail (in different ways) to demonstrate WP:N:
 * http://www2.brent.gov.uk/egr.nsf/WebViews/Local+Authorities+-+Website+Ratings+and+CMS+software+in+use!OpenDocument&Start=4.21&Count=60&Expand=4.31
 * Not significant coverage (mention in a list, not discourse)
 * http://groups.dowire.org/groups/newswire/messages/post/3hnH7VVuIRXkGUdPnQC4AI
 * Not significant coverage (mentioned once), not reliable source
 * http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/multi-platform/comment/blog-how-battlefront-stood-out-in-the-online-jungle/2018440.article
 * Not significant coverage (mentioned once in passing), not reliable source (blog, not news section)
 * Please see the hide box above for a complete enumeration of every source cited in the article as of now.
 * <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  10:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See the first AFD. I will not explain it again here. MuZemike 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've reviewed the collapsed references and generally concur with the assesments. Where I have a slight difference of opinion, it is on items such as  which is noted as a blog and thus not reliable, and I would have said it is additionally not independent as the blog is written by the lead developer of the software.  So none of these slight differences in opinion materially affect the conclusion that all of the referencing provided do not amount to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:RS or WP:WEB standards. And not to be nasty, but I have to echo the concerns of SPA input on the Keep side of the argument. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:19, 22 August 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.