Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlackMonk 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlackMonk 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)

Non-notable software. Not one of the 16 listed sources is reliable (blogs, self-published information, PR interviews). The initial PROD was rejected by a second SPA account (with 2 edits). No in-depth coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are a few sources for this, and it appears to be an established company, but none of the sources are terribly deep or reliable. So reluctantly keeping the the List of Content Management Systems out of my head and thinking only of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I weakly advocate for a delete and take no joy in it. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Software Some of the references do provide deep and unbiased coverage. The article is about a notable niche software and should not be deleted.--Reach.muz (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)— Reach.muz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please see WP:GNG and WP:RS, and name 2-3 specific examples for unbiased in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Marketing sites masquerading as independent reviewers don't count. Simple re-publications of company information, even on otherwise reliable sites, don't establish notability either, unless those "reviews" provide additional independent details and research from a qualified author. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some references are from company's own blog, however many references are from CMS Critic which happens to be an important news website about CMS software. This site is known for its unbiased and well researched editorial content which is created by authors who are regarded as an authority on CMS software. I don't think any of the references are from marketing websites portraying themselves as independent sources.--Reach.muz (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Coverage Given that the article is about a niche software, it has been cited with good and reliable references. The article should not be deleted.--Mejames.parker (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)— Mejames.parker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - source review to address the arguments of new editors here, especially the praise for CMS Critic:
- Ref #1 CMS Critic - a quick Google search reveals, that CMS Critic is not seen as unbiased (not even within the branche). More specifically: this are the author's credentials. These are offered services by CMS Critic, aptly labelled as "Advertising and Services". Offers include useful features like pre-review audits, "fixing up" reviewed issues before publishing them, and even opting out entirely from a negative review. Some of those offers are a blatant violation of basic journalistic standards.
- Ref #2 is a general product overview, clearly provided by the company (promotional language)
- Ref #3 is a blogger review by "Emma McGowan: #feminist #blogger #sexpositive" with a "Love/hate relationship with #startups" (quoted from Twitter account).
- Ref #5 is a blacklisted marketing site
- Ref #6 is arguably the best reference in this mess, but contains only a short 1-paragraph summary with a very basic description.
- Ref #7 is authored by a student for Anglistic, Americanistic und Sociology - none of which provides expert knowledge of CMS systems.
- Ref #8 is the company's own blog.
- Not mentioned ref numbers are repetitions of listed cases. So no, none of those sources except #6 meets Wikipedia's criteria for an independent reliable source. Also, Content Management Software hasn't been "niche software" for several years now, this functionality has lots of providers and competing solutions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the concerns about references stated above are valid, however i recommend that the article not be deleted.--Adamsevan (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)— Adamsevan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good coverage as show by GermanJoe's reference analysis, even the above user, whose comment can be treated as a "delete" despite his recommendation, seems to agree. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show it's notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 9 November 2015 (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.