Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MojoMojo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MojoMojo

[edit]
MojoMojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software, references consist of non-reliable sources. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as notability is not established. --Boston (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All references covering MojoMojo are self-published, and therefore do not count towards notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. If the software is available (particularly if open-source) and usable, then the entry is useful in that it contributes to the completeness of the Wikipedia reviews, and it helps anyone looking for wiki software by providing an evaluation (even if limited). If the software has any new features or a novel grouping of features (as it claims), then retaining the reference to it is useful, and even if the software is not 'notable' for its wide adoption, drawing attention to the novel features may prompt their take-up by other open source products. --Bobhare (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Bobhare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You probably need a better argument that "It's WP:USEFUL". Indiscriminate collection of articles on every single obscure musician / society / publication / computer programme might seem "useful" until, but once you consider how prone these articles are to spam, vandalism and inaccurate information that goes unchecked, it's not so useful. There's only a finite number of people on Wikipedia who keep software articles in check, and they only have time to keep an eye on a finite number of articles. The rules on Notability are here for a good reason, and if you're looking for a directory of every open-source application, Wikipedia is not the site you want. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Full disclosure: I am one of the developers and I do keep an eye on this article for spam, vandalism, and accurate information. Dandv (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough for disclosing that, but I can't imagine Wikipedia ever reconsidering its notability policy because someone connected with article promises to keep an eye on it, especially not if the vast majority of COI articles are anything to go by. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. MojoMojo is listed in Comparison of wiki software, at AppliedStacks and at WikiMatrix. Dandv (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but other Wikipedia articles never count towards notability, and the other two websites appear to be sites which covers all software of this kind. However, to answer the original objection, the Wikimatrix page appears to be the place for people to go for the list of features rather than Wikipedia. There might be a case for putting a link to Wikimatrix in the Comparison of wiki software article if there isn't one already. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete MojoMojo is one of the most advanced if not the most advanced wiki in the perl language. It also has one of the most flexible and capable authorization layers of any wiki software, allowing control over both editing and viewing. This is an important feature of any wiki and the MojoMojo article should be there if for no other reason than to describe that. I use mojomojo over other wiki software for my business for exactly that reason, I can control who can see and who can edit everything.User:jayk806 —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC). — jayk806 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • This is the first time I've felt compelled enough to bother with signing up. Now that I've gone through the process I'll be editing other entries, I'm sure. User:jayk806 —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • In the case of open-source software, I think that the addition of WP:SPA tags to contributors is gratuitous. These persons simply work on creating software, not on editing Wikipedia randomly. Please see Raw Thought: Who Writes Wikipedia?:
-- dandv (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources covering this software. The references provided in the article are self-published. A search turns up none. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I believe those are what are being referred to, but I'm asking the question because as you note, they don't event mention MojoMojo. That shouldn't be surpising as those documents all predate the start of the MojoMojo project. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed 1, 2 and 3. I guess I didn't realize I needed to take references defined as such. Those three entries are more properly citations of material that has influenced the creation MojoMojo. I'm willing to act on constructive criticism to bring the article up to standard, but I'm not sure that this article should be deleted simply because there are no reliable articles that mention MojoMojo. That's a bit of a catch 22. In addition, I would argue vehemently that CPAN (ref 5) is a reliable source. -- Mxhunter (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Catch-22. Reliable sources covering the subject would establish notability. So if you can find articles written about MojoMojo, we have a start. Item (5) is not a reliable source. It's a change log. All it represents is some evidence that somebody is using it which not what is at issue. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a difference of reliable source interpretation then. I feel, every bit about this article can be verified through reliable sources. I am not referring to the just the Changes log on CPAN, but CPAN itself and the fact that one has full access to the code to verify that the content is factual. If there is any overly promotional part, let me know and I will remove it. If there are components of the article that could stand-alone then I'll edit it. If you are fixed on the mis-belief that all or any of the information is not reliable then let's delete the page. -- Mxhunter (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one is disputing that the article is factual. The problem is that the sources cited that mention MojoMojo are generally not accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia (at least not for the purposes of establishing notability). It is extremely rare for software to meet notability standards in the early stages, no matter how much potential the software has. If MojoMojo is going to be as important as you believe it will be, it will get coverage in independent reputable publications and/or a large take-up, it will wualify for an article. But Wikipedia is for things that are notable now, not things that are going to be notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MojoMojo is important and notable today. Furthermore the argument you provide for reliability is strongly correlated to popularity, and if I have a friend of friend that will write me an article a in tech. publication; presto I'm credible. That's pretty lame. You fail to understand open source software and in particular the notability of this leading Catalyst example application of open source software. In light of this ignorance, I motion to delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxhunter (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I am writing this using Ubuntu which I installed myself, so I'd think twice before you accuse me of knowing nothing about open source software (and, indeed, any clued-up editor will know the open-source nature of Wikiepdia itself). You suggestion of a mate writing an article about you in a tech magazine making you notable? No, because notability requires coverage in multiple independent sources, and that would be neither. The notability standards for software are a bit vague, and any suggestions for making it clearer are welcome, but one argument which is never going to be accepted as a claim of notability is "because I said so." (Certainly not when it appears to be coming from someone who is involved in creating the software.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wahoo you can install Ubuntu. That's not a reliable or notable indication you know squat about open source software  ;) Actually, the original comment was intended for some of the other detractors. Furthermore, I am not claiming to be the reliable source in any way. I am arguing reliable sources exist, but I'm beating a dead horse. I'm done with this circus act. Please delete the MojoMojo article. Mxhunter (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the onus is on Wikipedia to shape up if it wants to ever be relevant. As long as people like you continue judging the 21st century by the standards of the 19th, you will have this problem. The internet is here. It's real. You may in fact be using it right now! Any phenomena that take place entirely within the scope of the internet, you ignore, no matter their relevance, but any lie with enough connections to be "published" is solid gold. Andrew Rodland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Catalyst is relevant a lot, so its Wiki to a lesser extend. Its pure lazyness that i didn't wrote a Mojo article in the german Wiki, where i mainly contributing (perl articles). Lichtkind (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there didn't seem to be referneces to notability from major sources; they mostly appear to simply defining it (e.g. what it is) what it is rather than making it famous (e.g. being a staple of the world.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:POTENTIAL --Jhannah (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MojoMojo is an excellent and flagship wiki based on the Catalyst framework that has the potential to compete with other wiki software with a large user base. Development is ongoing and many a thing can be learned from getting involved with said development. schmoitzel! (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — Dhoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Folks who wish to keep the article, please heed this advice, which I offer in the best spirit of open discussion and cooperation: remember that this is not a vote; 100 more keep opinions aren't going to count for beans if they primarily state how wonderful MojoMojo may be or how successful it's going to be -- unless they're well-founded in guidelines & policy, the closing admin is simply going to gloss over them. MojoMojo may very well be the best thing since sliced bread, but if no one's written about it in a reliable source, it has no place here. From WP:V, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia:
“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. ”
There's still almost a day until this AfD expires; I strongly suggest directing your efforts towards improving the article, if you feel it can be salvaged. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in the case of open-source software, verifiability is not an issue: MojoMojo can be downloaded at any time, and all the claims about its features can be verified either by installing its codebase, or directly online. -- Dandv (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would argue that for web software, when an organization opts to use it it is an endorsement of the software. Especially in an area of software development with as many options as Wikis. There are several public sites who think MojoMojo is notable enough to choose over all the other options. There are many more that are used internally to companies (as wikis often are) that reflect that same opinion. Also - it is clear to anyone working on the development of wiki-like software that MojoMojo has features that make it notable. I think that after the comments and points people have made and edits to the MojoMojo page, the argument that it is not notable has become Wikilawyering in that it is supported only by the letter of the reference argument rather than the spirit of Wikipedia in notability. It is notable in it's features. it is notable in that it is used for public presence of organization's websites. It is notable in that it is an example of a complicated packaged and distributed general-purpose application based on Catalyst. To delete the article in spite of the above because there are not articles far enough away from the source that extol it's virtues (yet) is, I think, short sighted at best, and a violation of the principles of Wikipedia in favor of the letter of it's policies at worst. I also think that it is not invalid to allow young software with all the above notability the time it needs to garner the external references that the letter of the Wikipedia policies request. --Jayk806 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Having this same issue with an article I made the mistake of writing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MagicView. Maybe some here will understand what I am saying and explain it better *there*. Maybe reading what have tried to explain *there* can be helpful *here*. In a nutshell:
far too many it seems have gotten into their heads that wikipedia is an abstract of the web-- a listing only of subjects that have already been raised in webpages indexed by google. Looking at wikipedia guidelines carefully you'll see that there really isn't much support for the position that if a subject doesn't have sufficient buzz on the 'approved list' of google search result pages, that WHATEVER the content is, wikipedia is the wrong place for it.
if we look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions we see that "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet." Further, if we look at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_for we see that "some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept". If we examine the full depth of the notability purpose we'll find that "Notability: Wikipedia guidelines on minimal standards of importance exist for *some* types of topics, including biographies of living people, articles about music or musicians, companies and corporations, fictional topics, and articles about web-specific content."
this article is about SOFTWARE. it is not about a living person, music, companies, fictional topics or web-specific content. It needs to be judged on criteria appropriate for NOTABLE SOFTWARE, not criteria for other things that are notable. People write books on POPULAR software, not on narrow interest software that may be much more noteworthy.
A consenus to 'delete' should be based on whether the SUBJECT of the article should stand on its own, or be included in another article. It is NOT to delete content. The deletion debate should be about WHEN (OR NOT) AN ARTICLE IS APPROPRIATE TO MERGE WITH ANOTHER. My view (and i've looked, and have coded for years in perl) is that this article is CLEARLY NOTABLE WHEN REVIEWING EXTERNAL REFERENCES. From the perspective of someone who UNDERSTANDS THE SUBJECT, the subject matter is not only notable, but clearly so.
Look at the SUBJECT MATTER the program covers, not the 'name' of the program itself. As a subject there is plenty of external coverage, even if the magic 'name' of this software isn't mentioned.
Hope this is helpful in offering maybe a different perspective to those making decision to delete. If anyone understood what have expressed and you agree, sharing that insight on my MagicView deletion discussion might be extremely helpful. My own attempts there to do so on my own have been far less than successful. YSWT (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note too that the tone of the 'delete' voices here are 1000% more polite, civilized, and RATIONAL than my with own experience.)
http://www.wikimatrix.org/show/MojoMojo and http://www.webcitation.org/5eIA484Vl *are* credible external references FOR SOFTWARE OF THIS TYPE. The same would not be true likely for many other subjects but JUST LIKE WIKIPEDIA HAS DISTINCT CRITERIA FOR OTHER SUBJECTS SOFTWARE needs to be judged based on what actually is in the real world legitimate references for software. Unless it is incredibly popular and hard to use, no one writes books about software. Being Popular isn't the same as being notable.
maybe it hasn't been expressed in best language by each 'keep' voice, but I think there is a consensus that these sources are credible. Is it possible to hold open discussion for others to add/reply ? YSWT (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - despite what you may wish or believe, wikis and self-published sources do not demonstrate notability. Sources that don't use the name MojoMojo clearly aren't discussing MojoMjo. -- Whpq (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply - In the context of software, WHAT PREVENTS a wiki (if the wiki is itself a credible source, for example, a technical wiki) from demonstrating notability FOR SOFTWARE. If microsoft published a warning that its System G had a "MMMV" virus that would delete your drive, an article on MMMV would not be proper since original source was self-published by microsoft ?? An article on XXX law of USA can't be made if only web text of that law is on US GOV owned/self-published source ?? WHERE IS THAT IN WIKIGUIDELINES (hey, maybe you know something) relating to SOFTWARE.YSWT (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply saying "not meeting the notability guideline since the product hasn't been discussed in detail by reliable, third party sources independant of the subject" is like saying "not meeting the notability guideline since is not meeting the notability guideline". In the CONTEXT OF SOFTWARE, for *this* subject, WHAT *specifically* about the sources sited isn't reliable or independant.
  • and look, what is or is not a reliable source for *this* subject should be something arrived at by consensus. That's *supposed* to be the whole point of this. YSWT (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS defines what is meant by a reliable source. For software, there are plenty of industry magazines. These would be reliable sources indpendent of the subject. If yu can provide such coverage, then most editors would be quite happy to change their view. I know I would. But arguing that clearly self-published sources demonstrate notability will not get oyu very far. -- Whpq (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question how do you identify a 'meatpuppet' ? Whoever posted those tags is cheating. (the same thing, interesting was done with my own MagicView delete discussion. I just clicked on -Planetscape shows:
   * 02:13, 3 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MojoMojo ‎ (→MojoMojo:  Registered my 'keep' vote)
   * 19:19, 13 September 2007 (hist) (diff) m WDDX ‎ (added Perl to the list of programming languages which support WDDX)
   * 15:06, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m The Monroe Institute ‎
   * 15:00, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Remote viewing ‎
   * 14:46, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) m Sensory deprivation ‎
   * 08:26, 28 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Greatest common divisor ‎ (→External links)
   * 11:59, 27 July 2006 (hist) (diff) m Topological sorting ‎ (→External links)
   * 06:03, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Vampire ‎ (→Related legendary creatures)
   * 05:48, 16 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Vampire ‎ (→Roma and vampires)
   * 03:12, 17 July 2005 (hist) (diff) m Human genome ‎ (→External Links)

A contributor since 2005, topics from human genome to Topological sorting to The Monroe Institute, and you someone (hmmm, wonder who) flagged them as a 'meatpuppet' ? Did I miss something ?

  • As a software developer, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I had been reading your article and focused on the fact that it's built on top of Catalyst, which I am also familiar with (albeit I'm partial to Python ones like TurboGears and Twisted). When I typed this, I mistakenly used framework instead of content management system. That's all. My opinion that this project is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia stands, with no prejudice to re-creating it when and if it does become better known. Having used everything from Plone to Bricolage to MoinMoin to ScrewTurn and being an admittedly minor expert on the CMS you're using right now, I'm actually on pretty sure footing here, so don't worry. §FreeRangeFrog 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no.no.no. Your PERSONAL approval or disapproval is *not* the issue. Does the subject have OBJECTIVE EXTERNAL REFERENCE. *that* is the question. And to answer that question we need to use a critia appropriate for SOFTWARE.YSWT (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion and recommendation to keep/delete is based on Wikipedia guidelines and knowledge of the CMS ecosystem, not on personal feelings. As to objective external references, that article has none. Which is probably the reason for the delete !votes here. And I'd recommend against rampaging this AfD as you did the other one. §FreeRangeFrog 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep While I don't believe in that two wrongs would make a right, however in the software case there are hundreds, if not thousands of wiki entries for less notable software than this one (and personally, I think it's a good thing to have those pages, too). That isn't a question of right and wrong anymore, but a question of precedent and refraining from applying double standards, in order to remain consistent. There is no argument about that everyone would be happier if more sources would establish the notability of this software, however it would be a strawman to imply that there exists the expectation that wikipedia pages can only be created for exceptionally well known or widely used software. Furthermore, in the Perl community this software is most definitely considered notable, as evidenced by the various posts on Perl related news sites, blogs, community wikis and forums. I do not believe that the deletionist approach would remain consistent with the spirit of wikipedia policies, even if it remains debatable at level of the strict letters. A beautiful mind (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes.yes.yes Thankyou. You've addressed the question that should be asked, and needs to be answered by consensus. What criteria should apply to software. If it is notable for a community of users, as evidenced by the credible resources RELIED UPON BY *THAT* COMMUNITY then the software should be notable for wikipedia. Share that consensus with A beautiful mind. (Now if I could just get that same concept over to the 'friendly' folks beating the doors down on my little MagicView page....)YSWT (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - join in consensus with that, CPANTS Heavy 100 is a reliable reference of notability of perl modules. Also note, "insufficient reliable sources to indicate notability" is not a helpful contribution to the discussion. If you feel, for example, that the CPANTS H100 isn't a reliable reference, it would be helpful (even interesting) to hear your view as to the reason.YSWT (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A community consensus of what determines notability for software cannot be reached in a single AfD; it must be determined by a much broader range of editors, including those who have a strong background with Wikipedia. We cannot make up guidelines as we go here, which appears to be the growing beliefs among those wishing to keep the article. Notability guidelines for software have been debated for years. The closest we've come to a consensus was at Wikipedia:Notability (software), but that never reached a full consensus. Still though, if we apply this standard, again the closest we've come yet, this article clearly fails criteria. Despite comments above, CPANTS has not been determined by the commmunity as a whole to be a reliable source (I see no discussion about CPANTS at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, for one). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this single source (which by the way seems to be the single closest thing yet provided to a RS; WP:SOFT requires multiple RS's) claims
“ The CPANTS Heavy 100 index lists the CPAN distributions with the highest number of dependencies on other CPAN distributions. ”
Now as a bit of a layman to this sort of thing, again I may be wrong here, but it seems to be that this is merely a list of products with the most ties (ties may not be the best "plain english" term for this, I admit) to other products. It does not appear to claim to list how popular/heavily used it is on its own. Perhaps an argument can be made that many other products make use of MojoMojo (a reverse dependency), but the notability of a greater whole does not confer notability to its smaller parts. However, even if the CPANTS list could be considered a reliable source, the mention of MojoMojo is what Wikipedia would consider "trivial"; i.e. it lists MojoMojo without comment. Thus, by any (community-accepted) definition of reliable, we're still left with 0 RS's. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MojoMojo&oldid=1261358876"