Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refinery CMS

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refinery CMS

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by employee. The only independent source is [1], which is just a brief mention. Haakon (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, deleting this article is a step backwards. Below is a list of independent sources that build Refinery CMSs credibility:

Blog Articles

CMS Articles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.133.165 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-09 21:33:06

Delete - no significant coverage by reliable independent sources to speak of.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear references listed above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.133.165 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC) — 60.234.133.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (to the author) If you can improve the article sourcing I will give you a keep vote. I checked the CMS and seems good enough to have some independent coverage. Note thought that blog articles are rarely considered notable. Also, the number of followers and google group members cannot be used to establish verifiability (WP:V) and notability (WP:N) - these things that are necessary to get a wikipedia article. Pxtreme75 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added more independent sources to the article establish notability (WP:N) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.161.119 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 60.234.161.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. This is an improvement but you need more references from third party sources. The site's blog references can not be counted in favor of notability. You need reviews on major technology sites or/and research papers. Currently only the CMSWire article can be used to this end (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-cms/refinerycms-a-new-solution-for-the-ruby-on-rails-world-004939.php) - and it is not enough. Pxtreme75 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. A software product needs to have "long term historical notability" to support a stand-alone article. This is an open source content management system written in Ruby as a Ruby on Rails web application with JQuery used as the JavaScript library, and as such is one of many similar packages, and every single bleeding one of them imagines that they merit an encyclopedia article. Not even the independent review establishes that this has had any significant effects on history, culture, or technology, and without that kind of significance, NO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rating this open source project as non-notable is like saying that the Ruby-language community is non-notable, since RefineryCMS is of the top popular CMS for that language. Ruby itself is somewhat a new player in town, which make "long term historical notability" criteria relatively impossible to meet in a such emergent domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixcharles (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC) — Unixcharles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We can't suspend rules for this project alone. If there is no independent coverage in reliable, independent sources, then there is no notability, period. Haakon (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've updated the article to include a reference to notable Rails hosting company Engine Yard who partnered with Refinery CMS in December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.161.119 (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are normally not counted towards notability. 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable product as can be seen by very few reliable sources providing coverage. Promotional article is just spam really. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the concept of this project is not fully understand in this discussion, its not comparable to other CMS like Drupal or Radiant. This project is a structure to provide a standardized platform for the development of custom content management system using Ruby on Rails. I would say that Refinerycms is somewhere between cms-product and development tool, making press coverage or review unlikely. I haven't see any independant coverage that meet your criteria for DataMapper, Sinatra, Nodejs, etc... with popularity comes notability, and 500 github follower mean that 500 developer are getting notified on every single change to the code, which seem to me like important number and similar to previously mentioned development tools. As for the -written by employee- fuss, I haven't seen anything non objective in this article, but I don't mind rewriting it, which is not the point of this discussion anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixcharles (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability because it is yet another super-duper-widget erh, uhm, CMS 'solution.' A 'solution' BTW, which is full of DRY CRUD. Even says so, right there in the ad, erh, uhm, 'article.' Oh yeah, reads like an ad, too. Toss it.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying that we should delete the article because in your personal opinion it's not a good product? DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any value judgments about the product mentioned in the 'article' in question. The badly-written ad copy that is the article in question states that the product is based on DRY CRUD. But you would have know that if you had read the 'article' before deciding to comment.Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

based on DRY? you know that DRY is simply a software engineering concept? Can we restrict this conversation to web developer since this is what its all about? About the sound-like an ads (I think its off topic since this discussion is about notability), but I don't mind re-writing the article so that Its not written-by-employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixcharles (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Refinery CMS

Blog Articles

CMS Articles

Independent Commercial Tutorial for Refinery CMS

Association with a well known Ruby on Rails hosting Company

Refinery CMS Featured on a popular Ruby Podcast: Ruby5

221 Google Group Members

574 GitHub followers