Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magma 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   delete. The article's sourcing has not improved during this discussion.  Sandstein  12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Magma CMS

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD removed by author without any comment. Non-notable software product (web CMS). Original PROD text was "Article has no WP:RS reliable sources; the only source is to the software's developer's website. No claim to notability." Since then, examples of websites using the subject CMS have been added, but these don't add notability themselves. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are either trivial or not independent. If that's the best the creators have been able to find I can't see notability being established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Author, @Livit: "PROD removed by author without any comment". Yes, its my mistake, I'm still new on wiki and havent yet learned all the rules. I'm ok if others decide that this article should be deleted, but also, I would ask for basic guidelines. Magma CMS is a project active since 2002. Until recently this product was used for specialized customers and specific projects only. Independet articles and reviews in press and magazines are on pending and will be published in the following few month. After that, I will repost this article with additional details and references. I have read wiki article on notability. Any additional concrete suggestions on how to prevent this situation repeating again are welcome. Please help the newbie. Mr.dobrica 20:50, 10 December 2011 (GMT+1)
 * Comment Make sure that you get your sources sorted out before you write the article. Sources need to be reasonably detailed and independent. So a passing mention won't do, neither will a company's webpage, nor MOST blogs. If you can't find the sources don't write the article, wait till you find the materials you need. Good luck. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Author, @Tigerboy1966: Thank you for your comment. Another thing, some of the oncoming reviews will be published in serbian, croatian and slovenian languages. Are these references valid for wiki articles written in other languages, i.e. english, french, german? Mr.dobrica 07:09, 11 December 2011 (GMT+1)
 * In theory, the languages should not matter at all for notability in the English Wikipedia. In practice, some editors will not agree with this principle and choose to ignore all sources they can't read. There should be several sources, and they should be intellectually independent from each other. Three in-depth reviews by different people would be sufficient, whereas any number of press releases published in various places would not be sufficient. For perspective, Foswiki, the TWiki fork, was deleted despite its popularity and its notability according to the slightly different German notability criteria. (But this was a borderline case, and the sudden appearance of several annoyed Foswiki fans at the deletion discussion didn't help.) I suspect that you will find it easier to get the article kept in Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian than in English, so maybe you want to start with these versions. When you think you have enough reliable sources, you can ask me for advice on my homepage. Just recreating the article yourself is not advisable once it has been deleted after a deletion discussion. Hans Adler 00:03, 15 December 2011 (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.