- 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 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DotCMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Vanity page for Non-notable product. 16x9 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I wouldn't call this a vanity page; certainly, some of the wording needs to be altered to a more encyclopedic tone, but the subject is no less notable than, say, Sourceforge.net or other such information repository and content managing software. KaySL (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is it notable, it doesnt make a claim of notablity and lacks sources. The article list a basic feature set (which is the same for most CMS). Additional the article was created/mostly edited by a single purpose account, likely someone who is has a WP:COI. 16x9 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE - It's notable as a full-scale content delivery system, much like the backend behind Sourceforge, as I mentioned previously. Sources obviously are lacking, but that can be dealt with in ways other than AFD'ing the entire article. Also, it's very dangerous and unreasonable to assume that merely because a single editor created the article and also made significant contributions to it that they have a conflict of interest. If you can find evidence that this is so, then again the proper channels already exist to deal with this, other than deletionism. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE- No you did mention before. X is not notable just because it is "Big" but rather "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Your points are taken.16x9 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no reliable sources writing about this particular CMS. The current article is a bit on the promotional side. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A lack of sources shouldn't be grounds for immediate AFD, and the promotional tone can easily be removed by a rewrite. KaySL (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Does appear to be used by a number of major groups [1], notably the Sydney Morning Herald and several universities. This article briefly mentions it being more popular than Microsoft SharePoint for university sites. the wub "?!" 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your first link is WP:OR unless you find an article talk about how major group use this system. 16x9 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seams at any rate to be more notable than the usual CMS article. Reliable source review here. Won an award here. JulesH (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appears to meet notability requirements. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 21:55, 23 January 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.