Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DokuWiki

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DokuWiki

DokuWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Gerardnico (see related discussion at User talk:Gerardnico). While I appreciate Gerardnico's interest, I am afraid they failed to either read or understand the cited policies (GNG, NSOFT). The article still fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and no evidence of such notability has been presented in the discussion (I am honestly not sure what the spreadsheet Gerardnico created is supposed to demonstrate). The best alternative to deletion I can offer is to suggest draftificaiton of this article in Gerardnico's userspace, but I have serious concern this article will be ever ready to return back to our mainspace as the odds of something happening and making this notable are, IMHO, slim but arguably not zero...). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Analytics

The spreadsheet based on a Google Search is supposed to demonstrate the Wikipedia:General notability guideline points (ie Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, Presumed).

A Search engine is independent by nature because it ranks the page mostly by popularity. It means that a page is ranked based on the external links that it gets. That's how th Internet is voting. Nobody can influence the result and are then by nature `independent` and `reliable`.

This analytics shows/adds further the following points:

• a signifiant coverage - ALL articles are talking about Dokuwiki
• sources (listed in the sheet)

I don't know how to respond in a discussion in Wikipedia, I have then created this section. User:Gerardnico

The sources cited don't appear to be reliable (blogs, niche portals like https://geekflare.com/self-hosted-wiki-software/ with no evidence of editorial control), etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral:(Recusing from discussion with intent to be permanent and intend would re-enter if have added non-trial sources to article, and thinking unlikelty to re-enter even then Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)):Keep:Delete: Disagree with the passing mentions on the books front. I am mentally collapsing on stuff coming through at AfD at the moment ... but I suppose I will end up having to give a detailed defence here as the onus is on the keepers who may have to put in one hell of lot of effort compared to the nominators. There goes my RL and the summer ... this one merits a keep. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to delete per considerations of SELinux jockey experiment until I recheck due to social science guinea-pig considerations. Article CTIEBOMBed already. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The software has a sizable, continued usage in the developer and admin community, where it is well known. A book was written about it in 2018. Alien Life Form (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alien life form Thank you, the book does seem like a reliable and in-depth source. It would be good to find one more reliable source covering this, to satisfy GNG requirement of multiple (in-depth, reliable) sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Fairly large userbase in SoHo and departmental systems. As Alien life form points out there is a book published about it. It is included in many Linux distros. One of the key WP policies is WP:RF, and with that base/exposure there will be regular views actually using WP as an encyclopedia. In the last 20 days there have been 1688 views, the 90 day total is 8852, so that's a sustained readership of around 80 per day. The article is therefore needed. It is capable of improvement, and needs better referencing to keep deletionists at bay. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)--Bvdbos (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can someone please clerk this discussion into order. The good faith contribution by Gerardnico is a tad messy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I extended the page with more content and references in the hopes to highlight the relevance. I hope this matches Wikipedia's requirements. Let me know if/how the page can be improved. --Andreas Gohr (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added some page content as well indicating a popular use case for this software with what I believe to be a reliable source according to the WP guidelines. --Grumbly-Payphone-Exchange (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not only is dokuwiki important for mediawiki's own history and is mentioned and linked in the article itself, it is a commonly used tool in science, humanities and by the general public, especially in the German speaking world (even for disaster relief). It has entries in Clarivate WebOfScience going back to 2009, showing how long a variety of fields from computer science, humanities, library science to Astronomy and Physics have mentioned it in their research papers. In Elsevier's ScienceDirect it is similar. In Wiley Online Library, it is mentioned in articles and books from a variety of fields. It has over 200 entries in WorldCat. It is regularly mentioned in bachelor thesis, so students need it as well and it also is the topic of dissertations. Comment: I really do not feel that this is the best use of the deletion "nuclear" option in this case - much better to expand an article people might find useful. If you need books with chapters covering DokuWiki, there are e.g. ISBN 3936546282, a variety of books by O'Reilly like Kali Linux, Wikis for Dummies and Practical Open Source Software for Libraries as sources which include recommendations after reviewing their respective topics just to mention 3 in English. And there are more, some in Hindi, Chinese, French or Spanish. English book on DokuWiki from 2018 ISBN 193091166 has been mentioned, there are also some in german e.g. ISBN 3110352532 and other languages. --Gegohouse (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)- gegohouse[reply]

• Keep: It's the second largest wiki-software, after Mediawiki, it's actively maintained and it has an active userbase. The article may need to be updated/extended but it's much more relevant then other articles about abandoned wiki software-packages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvdbos (talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I returned to the discussion because there was a possible good faith minor WP:CANVAS attempt to persuade some comments to change to keep !votes. A good closer would account for that anywaay; and it would be hard at this moment to establsih any concensus to delete. I have always not wanted to get heavily involved in this as this was pretty well certainly always going to be a stonewall keep, and I dont want to get into hunting specific sources if I have to, I'm time limited. I do note of significance gegohouse presented significant and sufficient sources for RS consideration on 9:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC). Failure to challenge those within what is now nearly is surely a minimum for a keep no-consensus, and probably sufficient for a keep result. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. No delete votes remain, a book was found, this is probably good enough to close as keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for withdrawing. To state the somewhat obvious I had been immediately per the book of Vermeulen, an SElinux jockey,(jokingly SElinux people in general are at least one of awesome, sadists or geeks, mainly on the basis enforcing early versions of SElinux could probably damage one's health and one's organisation). So from my angle it was a always going to be keep from one end of the day to the other. BHG had been recently blocked, I came late to that party, and hadn't read everything on that dispute, but likely feel her cause was just and probably right. It seemed a bit topic=tt related so I'm inclined to recuse on those. You're a socialogist, eloquent, and therefore there's a possibly realize your style will might lure people into a WP:SEALION situation. Me, I'm sort of paranoid in some senses. To cut a long story short we have history, much history, and my !vote changes above were to prevent a speedy to teach the old lesson as this seemed to me a poor BEFORE and could have been a SEALION baiter for my zone, perhaps in particular for me. I've kind of just served my time in Ravenswood for the disruption, have had the injection, and are reviewing elements of my style thereafter. Sourcing keeps taken time and energy I don't really have so I mainly leave AfD's for other and will do minimum necessary for a no-concensus keep on others. One thing is certain to me, this AfD and the blocking of BHG contributed to the outburst that got me blocked. But all said and done, thanks for withdrawing, I've only really returned when "team keep" (I actually confirm I have no collusion with then) did a minor canvas which might have been an issue. But again, thankyou for choosing to withdraw and in good faith I believe you might have done so sooner if that was not possible by my !vote change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark This is a bit off topic, but I had no idea you got blocked, nor did I see (nor see now) any connection of this AfD to BHG incident. In either case, I indeed couldn't withdraw it with a delete vote in force, but now as I said I am fine with the community consensus, although for the record, I find the existence of highly specialized textbooks about a particular work not always sufficient for notability (some of them are very low quality and have very low impact). But taking all arguments together, ok, let this stay, it was reviewed and found not lacking (much). Thank you to all who participated, doubly to anyone who improved the article in question. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 2 September 2021 (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.