Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platformic


 * 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. There are some concerns about the quality of the sources, but it appears that enough people want to give the article the benefit of the doubt for the time being at least. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Platformic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Promotion for non-notable software product. The sources given are not significant, and I have been unable to find any significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Article was written by the company's CEO. It was speedied in December and this new version was mostly a copyright violation. Prod was contested without reason. Haakon (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little better than spam. &mdash; RHaworth 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , and . Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joe Chill. LotLE × talk  00:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral I have no experience of this product and could be accused of having a COI. Source [1] cmswire (and cmswatch) approach CMS providers (like myself) seeking to add pages of content to their systems and newsletters in return for recipricol linking. Source [2] is well very popular provider of software and hardware in the UK, but note that the article is written by Zack Stern himself. Sendalldavies (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * cmsmatrix.org allows people to add their own listings (http://www.cmsmatrix.org/help/wiki/how-do-i-add-a-product-to-the-matrix) Sendalldavies (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another online web development environment and content management platform.  Small blurb in PC World surely does not read like a reliable source: "Platformic could save you time--and money--in the consuming steps after you define your graphical design."  San Diego Tribune is a product announcement. CMS Wire seems to be a glorified blog with a small audience, and does not look like a reliable source.  And we need to be able to subject promotional articles like this to the Coriolis effect more efficiently and without having to examine every press release and blog review that a busy marketing director can cook up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure if I am a neutral contributor, because I have used Platformic before, but it seems to me that there should not be an issue with it having a Wiki page.  I have done research on CMS vendors on here, and have seen some that seem to have much more "corporate" information that this one does.  Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCoz   So why would there be a need to delete this entry.  I admit I am not a heavy contributor on wikipedia, but this seems fine to me.71.195.179.202 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC) — 71.195.179.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Joe Chill sources. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Joe Chill sources..."weak" because the sources are questionable per Sendalldavies' comments above. Were the article content more questionable or provocative I would be a delete voter, but I see no particular problem with the article being included and the sources do exist, even if they're arguably of borderline reliability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete still spam, sources read like paid advertisments. Viridae Talk 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Only a handful of news articles, but the PC World article inclines the balance towards keep. Someone should edit the article to explain more what their software does, as opposed to the irrelevant trivia about who founded the company it, and where he worked before, etc. The PC World article thankfully has some details on that, so improvement is possible. Pcap ping  19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the like-resume stuff. Not spammy now, I think. Pcap ping  19:10, 31 January 2010 (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.