Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MODx (software)

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. ELIMINATORJR 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MODx (software)

MODx (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOTABILITY Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to MODx (software). Appears this is just one in a handfull of WP:SPA Accounts used to promote MODx (software) on Wikipedia, Has previous deletions. Hu12 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete I hope the administrator who closes this makes sure any sites people will link to are reliable sources, too many times do we see software articles being kept with the backing of third-party sources that are in fact just adverts by sites the company can pay to write a glorious review. Jackaranga 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not related to the project, I'm simply a user who uses the software and felt that it needed an article on Wikipedia. I do have an account on wikipedia, but I cannot remember my password and the email address I used to register no longer exists... I had no other choice but to create a new account.

Can you please explain how the article itself sounds like an advert? Everything in that article is fact, supplemented with notable sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. It's completely objective, and I don't understand how it can be marked as an advertisement.Ricjustsaid 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Ricjustsaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am not sure how much notability is required but MODx is an essential mention in a list of modern CMS applications. It has a wide user base and has been compared to Drupal, Joomla, Wordpress and more. I certainly agree that the previously deleted article was slanted toward the project but this new one is more neutral and most of all filled with facts and points reltating to the application. Jaygilmore 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)— Jaygilmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have made few edits outside this topic because I lost my username and password from a previous account. I have not made any edits because I am busy working as a business owner and web developer but I am a MODx user and I think that it needs to stand. Jaygilmore 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article marked as an advertisement? I don't understand how this article differs from other software articles on Wikipedia. For example, take a look on articles about other CMS like Joomla or Drupal. So, why constant deletion on this one? Seem like over protective or biased admin. Slylandrone— Slylandrone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at 08:00, 19 August 2007

Loads of other CMS software articles have been nominated for deletion before, and deleted in many cases, if Hu12, was really biased he would just have deleted the article as spam. Please can people replying to AfDs stay on topic, no point targeting the nomination itself, anybody can nominate any article for deletion, just convince us that the article should be kept. Jackaranga 11:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the issue that there seems to be no requirement to provide evidence that an article was entered as a promotional item. Someone has posted that this article was written by someone who has a business relationship with the developers and this is not substantiated. I know for a fact that the person who wrote it is an active MODx user but is not affiliated with the organization in any other way (to my knowledge). The article may be lacking in some additional third party resources and I will remove the claim oriented material that may make the article seem as a promotional piece. Please don't delete this article without first allowing it to be brought up to the standard of WP. I also don't see how this "contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." proves anything other than the fact that I have created a new account (as I had lost my old account info as I am not a regular WP contrib and have only posted a few small edits to other unrelated articles before). I am a person and a MODx user who is willing to contribute to the article. I have used many other content management systems and while bias is inevitable I know that a neutral article can be made.

I would request that the people who have deemed this article delete worthy be able to cite specific areas of the article that don't meet the policies. In addition, after reading the entries for other similar CMSs would suggest that despite multiple authors and edits they are similar in tone and no more or less neutral.

I do understand the need to keep WP a place of encyclopedic information and not promotion, spam, opinion or other similar material but the burden is on the author or authors to meet without knowing where the threshold is. Please assist us in ensuring that this and other contributions don't fail the standard. Jaygilmore 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration and attempts to find unbiased reviews, articles or the like I would say that MODx may not meet the WP standard but it is certainly notable. I will leave it up to others to further defend it. Jaygilmore 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

One final comment: I think that the frustration in this discussion stems from a lack of understanding of the WP policies and where editorial burdens lie. After review of said documentation, I now see the larger implications of retaining unverified and potentially promotional material. That being said the marking process has the appearance of digital vigilantism and lynching vs. the protection of ideals and the integrity of Wikipedia. Innocent or inadvertent non-neutral articles by a fisrt time editor does not necessarily prove impropriety or off-purpose intention just naivety. Everyone makes a first post at sometime. It should be up to informed review not circumstantial factors or "where there's smoke theirs fire" methods(i.e. this is a single poster and a slightly too positive article so lets delete it because it must be intentional or a marketing tactic, "a" doesn't equal "a" in this case).Jaygilmore 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I really can't find much wrong with the current version of the article, other than that as an early version, it's naturally written by people who likes the software. Wouldn't most wikiepdia articles be started this way? Either by fans or the opposite, an early version of the article seldom establish notability, but this will come as more people read the article and add there views and knowledge. Until then, it would be fair if Wikipedia added some information along the lines "This article is not yet considered to be an verifiable or neutral article by Wikipedias standard - please contribute [in this and this way]", but the big "warning" boxes on top of the article right now seems way too "harsh" to me. -- Karsa.olong 11:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to suggest a couple of things: Express your opinion using the normal AfD format, (start your paragraphs with either Keep or Delete (or Comment if you don’t have a strong opinion either way), if you want to add a reply after already having expressed your choice for keep or delete, then you can omit the bold text. But please try to avoid long tirades, stick to the point. Jackaranga 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my nom. I have the same concerns as Jackaranga. Simply having search results or links, may mean well paid Search engine optimization. If some are found, trivial or incidental coverage of the subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. This is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete But on the basis of notability and not on the overly paranoid idea that all submissions are broad/multilevel spam. Protect the integrity of WP but don't assume every poster is a scam unless proven otherwise. Thanks Jackaranga for the suggestions on usage. There should actually be a recommended format link in these pages. Jaygilmore 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just incase you were thinking otherwise, WP:SPA, stands for Single Purpose Account, not Spam, though I see how one could think that as the spelling is very close to WP:SPAM. Jackaranga 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Jackaranga: I didn't think that WP:SPA was the same as WP:SPAM my reference to spam is in the content of Hu12's nomination where it is suggested that the only purpose of the SPA IS to promote MODx. This kind of wording implies knowledge of the SPA as a fact vs a circumstantial point to consider which should be worded as may be to show sucpicion or caution. As I mentioned above though the article does need revision and may need to be deleted per the notability.Jaygilmore 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

SPA accounts and IP's were used for the purpose to edit both the current and deleted versions of MODx (software). Not too dissimilar to what has occured on this page. Promotion can be perfectly innocent, within a particular interest or it can represent a user pushing an agenda. Either way, niether the words "Spam" or "scam" were mentioned or suggested.--Hu12 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hu12: I wasn't meaning that you necessarily meant to suggest it. I also didn't think that it was your intention to suggest anything it is just that some words can have more powerful meanings than we intend. I do though support your nom after learning about WP policies and purposes. Cheers. Jaygilmore 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to advertise MODx at all; I saw the previous article and found it to clearly be an advertisement and I totally understand why the article was marked as such. However I've also seen that pretty much all of the other CMS/CMF softwares have articles, and felt that MODx needed one as well - it's as simple as that. No agenda or advertising intended. If you're basing the notability argument on the number of "big" sources covering MODx, then I agree, the software doesn't have enough sources like that yet and probably should be deleted as per the wikipedia guidelines. Ricjustsaid 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 10:53, 24 August 2007 (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.