Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contao

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 September 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contao

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

All sources appear to be first-party - this looks like it could be self-promotional and non-notable to me. It seems to be German-origin software, and I tried looking at the Deutsch Wiki version of the article to see if it was any better, but it seems to be in roughly the same state. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the deletion. Contao is an OpenSource CMS like WordPress, Joomla or Typo3.

What would it take to keep the article online?

Here, for example, is an article about Contao:

https://phpconference.com/blog/the-wonderful-world-of-contao/

or here are some statistics from buildwith

https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/Contao 2001:A61:5018:4B01:D4E2:6152:5CC6:5C09 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be "like Wordpress, Joomla or Typo3" but these very BuiltWith statistics are an aggregator that shows only 0.05% market share, basically a footnote in comparison to those three (and the other big names). https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Contao shows no notable websites using it? There are a lot of CMS systems out there, surely not all of them are notable. Hornpipe2 (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you, usage popularity doesn’t determine notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but it's a hint. Hornpipe2 (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to address the plethora of materials noted below and in the “Further reading” section? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Hornpipe2 [1] by Pearson, source #7, and the PHPConference source linked above appear to be secondary. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, this article describes a sophisticated and maturing content management system that is a free and open-source potential competitor to expensive and proprietary systems. I've added some more information from the French-language site. — Objectivesea (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find gethub and other download links. Change logs used now for sourcing aren't a RS, nor is much of anything else used in the article. Easy delete. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to comment on the sources mentioned above? There's an extensive wealth of educational materials specifically for Contao listed under "Further reading". Yes, the article has yet to incorporate them, but they all seem like RSes to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent sources. The only sort-of significant source I can find is the one listed above from phpconference, but it's a blog post, so doesn't support notability. I don't have access to the German books in the "further reading" - they seem to be the usual manuals that are published to support a piece of software. I don't know if those are considered for notability - they would primarily be "how-to" and that is about the software but I don't know if those can be used to support notability. I will cycle back in case someone has the answer. Lamona (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, instruction manuals count. Being a blog doesn't degrade notability either unless it's self-published from a random person or corporate. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability page states that "product instruction manuals or specifications" are primary sources and therefore not suitable for notability. I realize that these may not be manuals created by the company itself (I do not know if any of these people have a direct connection to the company), but I'm still not sure that manuals on the order of, say, O'Reilly, support notability. They are basically "how-to". Even if the blog post is considered toward notability, that gives us only one source. Lamona (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked in the wrong place and read that page wrong. WP:NSOFTWARE is a widely cited essay that believes that instruction manuals count. Being covered by very reputable publishers such as Pearson Education both provides information to use in the article and tells that the software has had a wide impact. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Difference of opinion on whether sources brought up in the discussion are sufficient for a standalone article. Are there any ATDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 29 August 2024 (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.