Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMME
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Kurykh 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about software developed by author of article (first version has recently been released); reasons for this nomination are: notability has not been established and conflict of interest (promotion of own software, albeit software under a free license and not commercial software) - Simeon87 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: of course, no assertion of popularity yet. However, there are a lot of CMS'es on the list of 'notable content management systems', that I'd consider just as 'unnotable', and mine is the only one completely based on files that has wiki simplicity and wysiwyg simplicity. It differs a lot from all other CMMS's I've seen and tried on these points. Along with these remarkable points, it also has very low hosting requirements. I think all these aspects make it 'notable'. Hans Oesterholt (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The previous comment was made by the creator of the artice and the developer of the software. - Simeon87 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes indeed. IMHO, this piece of software is different from others. I put it in the CMS list for free open source software, because I believe it is different from other CMS'es (otherwise I wouldn't have created it). Hans Oesterholt (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The previous comment was made by the creator of the artice and the developer of the software. - Simeon87 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no coverage of the software in intellectually independent secondary sources [1][2] means that Wikipedia should not have an article on it per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N. cab (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources to attest to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 January 2008 (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.