Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E107 (software) (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   delete. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

E107 (software)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content management system of dubious notability. One of the developers of the system has protested to me and since that developer claims the system has 124,000 registered members and it is six years since this was rejected by the previous AfD, I am prepared to give it another discussion. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete not finding anything much on google. results peter out after around 800 hits. The register reference given in the article just mentions it as part of a list of open source CMS systems and nothing more. The yahoo reference is taken from a press release at prweb. None of the other references are independent. noq (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Since April 2005 this article has been deleted and re-created a few times, including once at e107 (CMS), which I moved back to this title and nominated for deletion as db-repost. Looking through the version history, I can't find any assertion of notability for the product. There are no Wikipedia guidelines for software notability yet, but WP:GNG suggests significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, and there doesn't seem to be any of that online. There is the mention in the 2007 The Register article, and some coverage on a few CMS survey sites which, as specialist websites, will try to be as comprehensive as possible. Wikipedia, on the other hand, restricts coverage on the basis of notability, and as far as I can tell it's not yet notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can not find sufficient evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT.  Gong   show  23:14, 29 March 2013 (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.