Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentico 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Kentico CMS

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

software that does not meet WP:N and has no significant third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - when searching for Gnews references for the company, all were press releases.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because as we all know, if something isn't getting press in Google News, it doesn't really exist... Proxy User (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - If on the other hand one does a regular Google search, there are plenty of hits, everything from discussions about support on various OS platforms, to help forum threads. Just because it's not GPLed Open Sorce doesn't mean it cant be in Wikipedia. Proxy User (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: And we all know, that just because it exist does not mean it is notable. Also "support" and "forum threads" do not equal third party reliable sources.  There are many propriaty commercial products on wikipedia they just meet the requirements for inclusion.  16x9 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; does not meet notability test; appears to be spam entry. --Mhking (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Couple of notable refferences have been added xpassa (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — xpassa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Kentico is a software used in 74 countries. It should be notable enough, shouldn't be??? drheemes (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.50.164 (talk) — 194.213.50.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The Information Week and CMSCritic articles seem to justify keeping this one. JulesH (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Did you read the CMSCritic article? I would not call that a reliable source and gave anything more than a press release. The info week article seems PRish but that still is not significant sources.  16x9 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Information Week is an acceptable source. "Significant" is clearly a POV. Sorry you don't like the article, but it meets all the requirements and then some. Proxy User (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, one pseudo source at one point in the products history is not enough to write an encyclopedia.  The article is a corporate advertisement that needs to be deleted.  16x9 (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - So Information Week is a "psudo source" now, but not for the thousends of other articles that use it as a source? Can I expect you to nominate ALL the articles that use Information Week as a source? Or is this a double standard? Proxy User (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you please write what exactly makes an advertisement from this article? History of company? List of modules? Please kindly find something subjective. xpassa (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Plenty of non-spammy, non-forum references on line, clear evidence of substantial customer base (i.e. usage), article references are well within acceptable range. I don't see the issue. WiccaWeb (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (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.