Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick.Cms (2nd nomination)

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 albeit weak. Computerjoe's talk 12:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick.Cms

Quick.Cms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unremarkable content management software. Possible WP:SPAM. Marwood 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand know anything. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quick.Cms (please read this discussion) user JulesH said: "Non-English sources are fine, if that's all there is. Changing my opinion to weak keep on the basis of this source." Then we buught book, read article, translate and put here again but base on this article. We give book to "Source" for a reliable source. Then what is again wrong?

If this article is not good then please tell why CMSimple, Joomla, Drupal, EZ_publish and other commercial/not commercial CMS are still here? JulesH said that Cubecart "might also warrant deletion; a quick scan doesn't turn up any independent reliable sources, although the one million users claim suggests there should be some sources out there -- something doesn't become that popular without being discussed". Then Cubecart is still there and there is no any reliable Source. Our article was deleted many times and i think it is unfair to delete this article but other more articles are still here and dont have any source. Marwood said that it is possible SPAM. Cubecart is not a spam? I see many other pages without sources and possible SPAM but they exists here for years/months. Were is justice? And other question: why it is spam? This is normal article without any informations that this program is SUPER, EASY, HYPER, EXTRA etc. Only basic informations, I read CMSimple and there is "It aims to be simple, small and fast" ... this is for me SPAM.

Eh... i am tired this :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC).

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument, and I don't think a single chapter in a single text book is sufficient to warrant an article on this software. There are hundreds of PHP-based content management systems available, there is nothing special about this one. Also, there are WP:COI concerns about you writing this article yourself. Other editors are free to disagree with me, however, which is the point of this five-day discussion process. Marwood 08:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Then why You dont delete/change other articles if this is not argument? Why other pages are shown from few months/few years without any source? Where is this justice? Special in this product is that it is written in XHTML 1.1 and based on FLAT FILES not XHTML 1.0 transitional ... most of CMS systems are based on MySQL and dont use XHTML 1.x strict. You will find few CMS using XHTML 1.x strict and Flat Files database. I want be honest when i create this article. What is for me problem create anonymous account and create article as independent person? Other please read this article. Is there any SUPER informations that this products is GREAT etc as other spam pages You have on this wikipedia? Opensolution 10:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 08:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I can't read the source suggested for this myself, but its existence seems to suggest some degree of notability. I'd appreciate if somebody who understands Polish could comment on the value of the source. Note that this is not eligible for speedy deletion as recreation, since the source was added since the last AFD, and the major concern in the last AFD was a total lack of sources. JulesH 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete (but I'd easily be swayed to keep) since the article does not assert any notability. Note that I don't know what the source says, so if it provides more than trivial mention (i.e., it has a review or recommendation or something like that, not just a listing of many products) I could support a keep. DMacks 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep the article does not assert any notability but it does appear to be have non-trivial coverage in the cited source. DMacks 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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.