Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoomlaShine


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

JoomlaShine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm sorry but this is not a quality article. It reads completely promotional, and there is no assertion of notability whatsoever. Thorncrag 11:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- Non notable software, I don't find any reliable sources- the majority of sources are from Twitter, Pinterest, Linkedin and other social networking sites. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

i did a minor edit to the article, but was unable to make that page less promotional; because i found nothing of promotional there --Hiddenray (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep I thinks it's notable, but the page itself is too promotional. I don't think it necessarily needs to be delete; it is just in need of a major overhaul. Sourcing appears thin also.Rupert&#39;sscribe (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All sources are (more or less private) blogs or primary sources. mabdul 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As an additional note, "RocketTheme" which is widely regarded as the most popular Joomla template provider (see sources in this article) does not have an article.     Thorncrag    15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep 20 employees - worldwide spread software, meets my notability guidelines. And after all, it's ways less promotional than the article about Windows 8. --Hiddenray (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Windows 8 page is more well sourced, and in my opinion, less promotional. I agree the page should be kept, but it is too promotional.Rupert&#39;sscribe (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought this article is about a product and not about a company... But this fails then also WP:NCORP and WP:NSOFT/WP:PRODUCT. mabdul 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is about a notable product. And this product is not somebody's private sex toy, but there is a whole company behind. It is absolutely a notable product. --Hiddenray (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you are surely able and willing to provide independent, third party and reliable references (either about the company or the products), or? mabdul 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You live in a delusion. There isn't such a thing like a reliable independent third party review. This concept is flawed from its inner root. I wrote this somewhere else, but the way the guidelines are followed has the result to fill up this encyclopaedia with advertising of multinational companies, often discarding quality products from minor companies and people without the means to buy articles and advertisings on tech journals. Give JoomlaShine enough money to buy an independent third party review, and you'll have your neutral forged source. My comment here, is much more reliable and independent than an article on the NYT. --Hiddenray (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No need for a personal attack here, Mabdul is correct that the page is lacking in reliable independent sources, and the addition of some would improve the sourcing of the article. While you are right that no source is truly "unbiased" we are using blatant biases to try to determine what constitutes (and what doesn't) a reputable source.Rupert&#39;sscribe (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no indepth and reliable references could be provided. mabdul 10:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet GNG, references provided are mentions on blogs, content does not indicate notability just "product detail". --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2012 (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.