Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EZ publish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EZ publish was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

From Cleanup: EZ publish - promotion. Poccil (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • A PHP-based website builder. The present article is just an ad for the project, but it does have ~6000 hits on Google and apparently, at least one person has written a book on learning it. But I don't like ads on the Wikipedia, and if it's that popular, someone will rework it eventually. Delete. --Ardonik 04:44, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • The thing is big enough it might merit an entry eventually, but this isn't it. Either kill it, or chop it down to a substub consisting of only the first sentence, & start over. FZ 19:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are actually some 250000 Google hits[1] and it was in the list of Content Management Systems long before the article was created. Second and third paragraph would have mostly to go away, of course... Nikola 23:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • eZ publish appears to be notable, but this is an ad. Delete if not rewritten. -- Cyrius| 02:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Comment this is a recreation of a deleted article. The old one was deleted mostly because it was a strongly POV ad, this discussion can be seen above. This new article is somewhat better and while deleting it for unimportance might be advisable, it should not be speedy deleted as it is not a simple recreation of the deleted article. - SimonP 13:33, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Listed as copyvio by Jallan. -- Cyrius| 02:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have fixed it (with some help from eZ), hope it is neutral enough. See also my note on copyvio page. As it stands now I can testify that it is factually correct. keep.--Dittaeva 22:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know what is going on here. My understanding is that one does not write new articles or make changes on the top of texts that are possibly copyvios as the original text would still remain in history. Instead one creates a new article on a subpage if desired and then uses that subpage as a new indepedant article page with no previous history.
    Outside of that, this new text was just copied almost exactly from with insignificant changes. The changes are so few that the article is really still source text. We can copy the original text and the entire manual to Wikisource if we want to since it is released under GFDL. I don't know if WikiSource wants such things. But I am quite sure we don't want the first page of computer manuals in Wikipedia masking as encyclopedia articles. If we do, I can provide a great many articles written in similar marketing droidese:

    Microsoft Visual FoxPro is a relational database system that simplifies data management and streamlines.

    Visual FoxPro makes it easy for you to organize data, define database rules, and build applications. You can quickly create forms, queries, and reports with the visual design tools and wizards. Visual FoxPro also makes it possible for you to rapidly ....

    I believe this ought to go back to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and be fixed up properly so that the original article does not remain in the history. But, in case I am wrong, I will leave the doing to someone else. Then, if the entirely new article remains as it is now, I would replace on VfD as a new article to give it a full 5 days. My vote on this particuar version would be very strong Delete. If a user of this product wants an article on it to be Wikipedia, they should write a genuine encyclopedia article about it. When was the software created? What problems did it have when released. What is its subsequent history? How has it improved? What are its competitors and how does it compare with them? Who loves it? Who hates it and why? There is some encyclopedic information on eZ Publish on the website and elsewhere. Personally I've other things to do than publicize commericial entities in Wikipedia, but if someone wants to write a genuine encyclopedia article using such information as exists, I don't object. Jallan 02:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've reverted. The copyvio notice is quite explicit, and I don't understand how one can miss "Rewrite article at:" and "Please do not edit this page for the moment, even if you are rewriting it". There's a nice big link to where a rewrite should happen. -- Cyrius| 02:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)