Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TYPO3

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TYPO3

- And several incoming redirects.
Queried speedy-delete-tagging. This page was tagged db-spam, but it has existed since 13:20, 5 May 2004. The software described seems to be free and thus there is no financial gain in describing it here. But move this page to Typo3? (WP:MOSTM) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that spam and advertising are only done for commercial gain. To draw customers, website visitors or increase brand name visibility is spam too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is this article, and a bunch of German language results from a Gioogle News search. Many are press releases but I suspect amongst that mess is some more reliable coverage not in English which I am unable to read. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The writing in the article is not that good, but TYPO3 is an important open source CMS. It is used widely worldwide. This year there will be a TYPO3 congres in the USA titled T3CON09, TYPO3 is mentioned on CMSWatch with systems like Joomla, Drupal, OpenCMS and Plone as open source systems, and 43 other commercial systems. Also the EContent Magazine, which I regard as an objective source, has a fresh article about open source Web Content Management, and they mention TYPO3 as one of the 10 major players See the article here. So it is a definitive keep, but the article should be rewritten from an objective point of view. Herlaar (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article you linked to doesn't really cover TYPO3 beyond mentioning in a list. That Although indicative of notability when included on such lists, we really would need something more substantive written about TYPO3 itself. I've identified one article above. Are you aware of any more articles written about TYPO3? -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - TYPO3 is an important CMS, used worldwide, and it is free. I do not see a difference between the neutrality of this article, or i.e. the entry for Joomla! I also think that the restriction of references only to the ones in English, is, from an academic point of view, absurd. Then wikipedia would be dependent of the incapabilities of the editors, and not about the information and content that is meaningful and supporting an article with proper and accurate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.146.248.159 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What this article needs (as well as most of the other WCMS entries, too) is a neutral summary similar to Drupal's first few paragraphs. TYPO3 is important enough to merit an entry, but one written in a straight forward fashion, not trying to extol the virtues with hype words like "powerful, flexible, extensible" and other such meaningless terms, especially in relation to CMSs. After all if it isn't all that, we wouldn't be wanting to use it. Tell us HOW it is extended, in which way it is flexible, etc. GuiderBob (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Tons of news coverage: [1] Heavy coverage in scholarly literature too: [2]. Cazort (talk) 19:01, 13 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.