Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papaya CMS (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Papaya CMS
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of notability. Has only had a single source (its GitHub repo, which doesn't contribute to notability at all) since its creation in 2010. The previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, including a comment that the German article has sufficient sources to establish notability. That doesn't appear to be the case. Greenman (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Couldn't find many sources that weren't first-party or simply "how many websites use...". I'd say it fails WP:GNG
 * Lewcm Talk to me! 23:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – could not locate sources that would make this notable. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, concerning the "keep" votes in the first nomination, I don't think any of the German sources on Google Scholar gived significant coverage to Papaya CMS. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:26, 25 November 2023 (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.