Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMS Made Simple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 25 August 2007 (→[[CMS Made Simple]]: closed as delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 15:50, 25 August 2007 by Xoloz (talk | contribs) (→[[CMS Made Simple]]: closed as delete)
- 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 consensus is that the new sources offered do not meet the standard for WP:RS, and that the article thus fails WP:N. Xoloz 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CMS Made Simple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Originally prod deleted, but was contested at deletion review and restored. I have to agree with the original prod that the article fails WP:NOTABILITY. The sources that were brought up in deletion review all appear to be blog or catalog entries of one form or another which can't confer notability. --Farix (Talk) 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources are found to give notability Corpx 04:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources posted in the DRV: [1] [2] [3] JulesH 13:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know how good a source Blogsweek is; the others seem OK.--Bedivere 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. I do not believe the three sources provided in the DRV qualify as references that have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. In fact, I don't even think they meet the standards for external links, much less those for reliable sources. -- Satori Son 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete purely nn and darn close to spam - had been deleted speedy as spam before, prod deletions are regularly overturned at DRV as a courtesy - just as any one editor can contest a prod. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 17:17, 24 August 2007 (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.