Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick.Cms

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. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick.Cms

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

Article has twice been {{prod}}'d and the templates have been removed. Concerns are that the article reads like an advertisement and does not assert its notability. Non-notable web software. Also, apparent WP:COI issues. Douglasmtaylor T/C 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unable to find any reliable sources JulesH 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


I understand. Then please explain difference of Quick.Cms.Lite article and CMSimple, Cubecart? For me it is unfair to delete one but more other stays. Maybe article about Quick.Cms.Lite must be changed but what must changed etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 August 2007

  • CMSimple should be kept due to the existence of independent reliable sources about the software (e.g. [1]). If you can show sources about Quick.Cms.Lite that are similar to this one, then it should be kept. I looked for them, but didn't see any. 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. JulesH 18:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Quick Google Test. 145K vs. 1 to 2 million hits. Also, if you don't think those two articles should exist, you can always submit it to AfD. Also, please see WP:WAX. KTC 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unable to find reliable sources; appears to be relatively unknown. Allow the product time to become widely used and then include it. At the moment it does little more than attempt to drum up interest in the product. --NMChico24 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Has already been speedy deleted before. Jmlk17 06:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. We will give some independent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 13:05, 5 August 2007

Comment - Just a note. The trick here is finding credible, secondary sources. If you can do that, I'll withdraw my "delete" for this. Please see WP:V as well. I looked, couldn't find anything. And best of luck to you. Into The Fray T/C 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One book have chapter about Quick.Cms but in polish language (http://helion.pl/ksiazki/cmswww.htm). As You see there is Quick.Cms in a list of chapters (http://helion.pl/ksiazki/spisy/cmswww.htm). We can put this source with pages numbers etc but we dont know that it is ok for You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensolution (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 August 2007

  • Non-English sources are fine, if that's all there is. Changing my opinion to weak keep on the basis of this source. JulesH 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok then we will read article and translate some of text from this book.

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.