Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mautic

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. ✗plicit 05:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mautic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

no reliable source with sig coverage. Only insignificant awards and self-published sources Behind the moors (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Behind the moors:, I beg to differ. Your claim about insignificant coverage and self-published sources is unsubstantiated. You can clearly see plenty of third party sources including a published book about the article's subject. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book about Mautic was issued by StreetLib, an Italian self-publishibg platform. Self-published books do not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Added additional sources. 2) Mautic has every right to a Wikipedia article as any other open-source software bundle today. It has already achieved world-wide notability matching those of WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, GIMP, phpMyAdmin and others... Furthermore, it is also included along with them in out-of-the-box app installation catalogues on popular server management platforms such as CPanel and Bitnami. --Omer Toledano (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ^(talk) 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some mentions on Google News but nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP IMO. There's no such thing as a "right to a Wikipedia article". (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GIMP is pretty much the gold standard in open-source imaging programs, this is one of hundreds of open-source pieces of software, so to compare the two isn't correct. See the links in the GIMP article. No one has right to anything on wikipedia, you have to prove notability. It seems to have one minor award in 2015 in a magazine, that's about it. Oaktree b (talk) 05:58, 14 December 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.