Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly CMS


 * 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.  Citi Cat   ♫ 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfly CMS

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, maybe WP:SPAM. I had used PROD but it was removed without any contributions addressing the issues. Jackaranga 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for procedural reasons. Ubernostrum 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Since you tagged it with PROD, two other users have apparently tried to edit the article to address your concerns; you reverted one of them outright (and haven't, as far as I can see, answered that user's questions about the revert yet) and proceeded immediately to this AfD. Given that, this AfD is inappropriate and should be closed while you and those users who wish to improve the article come to a consensus on how to proceed. Ubernostrum 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one editor added to the article, the IP and the user are the same person, I did answer him, and you can't add copyrighted content to wikipedia. Jackaranga 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There appear to be users on the talk page now asking about how to improve the article; given what you've revealed about your motives in other AfDs you've opened, why don't you close this and let them get to work? Ubernostrum 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Is under active development by at least two editors, and tagged as such. Does not raise WP:SPAM issues at all, any more than any other article on a piece of software. WP:V issues likely to be rectified by on-going editing, and that will satisfy WP:N. If the editors working on it stop working on it after AfD, AfD it again, noting that promise to fix the article was not met. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note : The article has been around for over 2 years now, and nobody has managed to assert notability, and nobody in this AfD has asserted it either. Jackaranga 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's really not relevant -- tagging with the "notability" template would have been the correct step, and would have offered the same impetus for interested users to come work on the article (which they might not have known about) without making them wonder whether it's going to be deleted out from under them. Ubernostrum 22:35, 4 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.