Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seditio (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The arguments for delete concentrated on the notability issues within the article, but the keep arguments largely consisted of variants of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which I do not recognise as a valid argument in this context. Other arguments in favour of retention actually indicated the absence of reliable, third party sources by admitting that the software is "not well known". The keep arguments were therefore not persuasive when balanced against the arguments for deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seditio

edit
AfDs for this article:
Seditio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No claim of notability and lacks third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is about non-consumer content management system and content management framework software that makes no claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Software firm spam, nothing more. I don't know why the previous nominations box included an act of sedition there... weird? §FreeRangeFrog 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe page is not software firm spam. As well as the product is open to anyone to use. A deletion was attempted before, and after some changes the page was modified and allowed back. For you to consider deletion of this page, under the terms as above, 90% of the other CMS/CMF listings must be removed. Seditio is a long standing product, that has been around for many years. Before it it was another product known as Land Down Under, which was a very popular System used by many. This page is formed similar if not better than many of the other CMS articles out there, if you do not think so go take a look. Most have no references at all. You can not blame us by recent actions of some people who are a problem in the community because they are thirteen year olds, trying to get their links everywhere. I should also mention that this product is popular enough the owner allowed a fork to be created from it. Kilandor (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — Kilandor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KeepA popular CMS that many people are using. This is not spam at all, and the article makes no claims of superiority. The article is very well written, and merely states the facts of a piece of software that is actually in existence and fairly popular. Don't delete a legitimate page simply because you've never heard of it. This article gives many examples of popular websites that use the CMS, and links to legitimate outside sources. I was not a writer of this article, merely a user of the CMS. Jslowik 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 98.100.169.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KeepWhy deleting one content manager page and not the others???? This article should be kept. Words of a telecom engineer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.27.114 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability and lacks third party reliable sources. Pevernagie (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Echhhooo that is exactly what the nominator said. Ikip (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing else to say but agree with the nominator. Pevernagie (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your trust in 84.97.27.114 is misplaced, (s)he tried to remove the edits by those who propose to delete the article. Pevernagie (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your source for who created it Neocrome About Us. Kilandor (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a self-published source, it is not a reliable source. Anyone can build a website and make some claims on it. That doesn't make the product notable. What you need is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Aecis·(away) talk 18:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site is 7 years old, and i'm tired of this its pointless. The logic pointless, Its like a Social Club, or high school, where only the popular kids get in or are liked. According to your logic even though Joomla may tell who founded and started the project, Well I can't belive that, because somone else didn't tell me that. And now your going to come back and say well Joomla is a well known CMS. Well you can't pick and choose your logic on a as needed basis, it either applies all the time, or not. I refuse to further attempt to save this page, or continue in any such descussion. This page has been targeted for deletion twice now, while many more pages in the CMS Category ar fare worse designed, some have even been flagged for years, for the same reasons as you are attempting, and in the past why this page was deleted. Clearly what applies to one, doesn't apply to others. And yes go ahead and cite me the article just because 1 page is that way doesn't mean yours is. Thats fine, if this page goes through for deletion, I will be nominating all the other pages that fall into the same categories as this, and that are flagged as such already.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seditio_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069633088"