Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subdreamer

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 Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. MessedRocker (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subdreamer

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

A content management system, just like all the others. No evidence of widespread use or significance. Article was started by a single-purpose account but has attracted some edits by other interested editors; these have not remedied a fundamental paucity of sources and a lack of demonstration of notability. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Please read the log a bit more carefully. I recreated this page on 5 September, it was deleted due to its prior history (i.e. spam) but I got it reinstated. The deleting admin said it was an error on his part to delete it. All prior history is irrelevant because the original content no longer exists and none of the original contributors are adding to the article - therefore our motives are the same as on any other Wikipedia article.

Please also read Talk:Subdreamer. I find it extremely frustrating that people keep flagging this page for deletion. How is it supposed to grow into a better article if you don't give it a chance?

All of my arguments on the Talk page still stand. Please do not delete this, I already got it reinstated once. JamminBen 09:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and Speedy Keep I restored this deleted article after a discussion, allowing JamminBen to work on the article. Jmlk17 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Note There was no discussion, in which other people than the contributor and User:Jmlk17 participated. I wouldn't have nominated for deletion yet, probably would have been best to wait a bit after the DRV to see if the article was improved, however it is unacceptable in it's current state, fails WP:VERIFY, WP:SPAM (14 links to the website in such a short page, come on). Personally I couldn't see any real proof of notability. I hope this AfD won't be speedy closed, or that would mean only User:Jmlk17 would have a say on the deletion (no original AfDs: page was speedy deleted, also the DRV was only open for 45 minutes Wp:drv#Subdreamer_.28closed.29). The page was undeleted, unsalted 21 minutes after having been tagged, so I think the AfD should stay open to have more views. My opinion for the moment is Keep to allow for improvement, but relist if no proof of notability if given. Jackaranga 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If possible avoid phrases such as It is a "powerful yet simple program", by the way. Jackaranga 10:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply OK, for starters I have removed the phrase you mentioned. I can remove some or all of the 14 links you mentioned, I have no issue with that, but where else do you get sources from a list of features besides the official website? If I take them out and someone adds a citation needed tag, it's just going to go round in circles.

Also, if this article is not worthy, why aren't some of the other similar articles being raised here too, such as e107? The e107 article has quite a few similarities to the Subdreamer article, and that hasn't been flagged. JamminBen 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page to some policies JamminBen. Hope you read them, can't really discuss much here if you don't know about the basic ones. I'm not sure lists of features are encouraged either. There are loads of things on wikipedia that need deleting, I don't know if that article you mention is one, but such a comparison is rarely well greeted in an AfD discussion (see WP:WAX not an official policy). Jackaranga 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Thanks for the info, I will check it out. JamminBen 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and unsourced. There are no Google News hits (not even press releases), no reliable sources in a regular Google search, and no hits whatsoever in library databases ProQuest or EBSCOhost. More time isn't going to make sources appear. --Darkwind (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Why are admins so quick to delete articles? Anything is notable, it's a basic concept of sourcing. Please, if you are unable to find sources, that does not mean they do not exist, that is just silly. They might be hard to find, and in this article they probably will be hard to find, however I can't sit here and believe nobody has ever written anything about this piece of software. I say keep, and review in 2 weeks. That will give the author and other editors enough time to write the article in a neutral manner, remove most of the citations of the products own website, and do a good comparison, history, and user statistics sections. 68.143.88.2 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not everything is notable; your neighbor's dog doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. What would distinguish this software is not a better article; it would be multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject, that have covered this software. I'll agree that there may be sources that I wasn't able to find, but the fact that this isn't listed in two major library research databases (including EBSCOhost's information technology file) suggests an uphill battle to locate them. (Incidentally, why would a truly notable WEB content management package NOT have sources that can be located online? Where would the sources BE if not on the Internet? --Darkwind (talk)) Per WP:V, the burden is on the article's contributor(s) to find the source, not the person/people who suggest removing the article. Even so, I made an effort in good faith to locate something to verify the content of the article, and failed to find anything reliable. See my comment on the article's talk page for additional details. --Darkwind (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment I agree, you did make a good faith effort. I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you of being too quick to delete, that wasn't my intent, and I could have selected more effective wording. You are making the right call about the speedy deletion of this article, 100%. What I was trying to suggest is that many good articles start just like this one has, and if you would simply add the article on your watch list and give the author and other possible editors even 7 days with it, I personally think with some hard work it will turn out to be a good article. Anything takes time, especially when the English Wikipedia has almost 2 million articles already, in the near future I can foresee "slim pickins" in the new article creation segment. (This paragraph is part of DigitalNinja (t c)'s !vote below.)

*Keep...for 1 week and re-evaluate. At the end of that week, delete if no 3rd party, neutral, note worthly enhancing progress has been made. Digital^Ninja 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: The AfD period is by default 5 days unless withdrawn, snowed, or relisted. That ought to be long enough to locate sources. --Darkwind (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• update I de-spammed some of the article, and included a couple outside references. However, I need to figure out how to make a ref tag properly! Digital^Ninja 02:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• changed vote to delete. I tried searching for any kind of 3rd party, reliable source I could find. I realize what DarkWind was thinking when he cast his vote. I don't like supporting deletion of articles I think were created in good faith, but I have no choice as a serious-minded contributor but to change my vote. Perhaps if the author can find something solid, but it is definitely going to be an up-hill battle. Digital^Ninja 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply I haven't been able to find sources either. I thought there would be some as Subdreamer seems to be well-known. If there are sources, they're pretty well hidden. For what it's worth, I got the ref tag working... you might find it easier to click Show Preview after making a change instead of making lots of changes in a row. JamminBen 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call on the show preview button...forgot about that :) (actually, I didn't think I needed it. Guess I was mistaken!) Digital^Ninja 03:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Review of article The article was significantly revised, with references to more websites, and much less linkage to subdreamer.com. I even found notability in a List of content management systems. Maybe some of you can take a look at it now and offer suggestions? Digital^Ninja 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable sources need to be external. I added Subdreamer to the list of content management systems when I created the page. That doesn't automatically make it notable, it's really just for reference. JamminBen 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: there's a need for more information on commercial CMSes on Wikipedia; see the List of content management systems. The article is on the right way; let it improve - Kuteni 18:51, 15 September 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.