Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seditio (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. The arguments for delete concentrated on the notability issues within the article, but the keep arguments largely consisted of variants of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which I do not recognise as a valid argument in this context. Other arguments in favour of retention actually indicated the absence of reliable, third party sources by admitting that the software is "not well known". The keep arguments were therefore not persuasive when balanced against the arguments for deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seditio
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No claim of notability and lacks third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is about non-consumer content management system and content management framework software that makes no claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Software firm spam, nothing more. I don't know why the previous nominations box included an act of sedition there... weird? §FreeRangeFrog 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThe page is not software firm spam. As well as the product is open to anyone to use. A deletion was attempted before, and after some changes the page was modified and allowed back. For you to consider deletion of this page, under the terms as above, 90% of the other CMS/CMF listings must be removed. Seditio is a long standing product, that has been around for many years. Before it it was another product known as Land Down Under, which was a very popular System used by many. This page is formed similar if not better than many of the other CMS articles out there, if you do not think so go take a look. Most have no references at all. You can not blame us by recent actions of some people who are a problem in the community because they are thirteen year olds, trying to get their links everywhere. I should also mention that this product is popular enough the owner allowed a fork to be created from it. Kilandor (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — Kilandor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When you talk about "us" ("You can not blame us..."), I can assume that you are involved in the company behind Seditio? In that case, please read our guideline regarding conflicts of interest. Aecis·(away) talk 18:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepA popular CMS that many people are using. This is not spam at all, and the article makes no claims of superiority. The article is very well written, and merely states the facts of a piece of software that is actually in existence and fairly popular. Don't delete a legitimate page simply because you've never heard of it. This article gives many examples of popular websites that use the CMS, and links to legitimate outside sources. I was not a writer of this article, merely a user of the CMS. Jslowik 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 98.100.169.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KeepWhy deleting one content manager page and not the others???? This article should be kept. Words of a telecom engineer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.27.114 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability and lacks third party reliable sources. Pevernagie (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Echhhooo that is exactly what the nominator said. Ikip (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had nothing else to say but agree with the nominator. Pevernagie (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although I have no idea what this article is about, it is well referenced, and I trust 98.100.169.148, 84.97.27.114, and Kilandor comments. Ikip (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your trust in 84.97.27.114 is misplaced, (s)he tried to remove the edits by those who propose to delete the article. Pevernagie (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any verifiability or notability of this system. All the sources listed in the article are either primary or are not reliable at all. MuZemike 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does not become clear, from the article and from my own search, that the software is notable. Aecis·(away) talk 16:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reliable source for you to try would be www.neocrome.net, newsmessage at the main page. The project is legitimate CMS, has many developers and fans both at seditio.com and at neocrome.net. The reason it looks new at the first sight, is because the project was developed behind "closed doors" in past 6 month. Anyway, deletion of the project without understanding it makes me wonder 87.70.91.111 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) — 87.70.91.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Neither being legitimate nor having many developers and fans make something notable. What it needs is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Aecis·(away) talk 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable third-party sources; the rescue squad seems to be engaged in a disruptive campaign of wikipuffery to fill the article with irrelevant footnotes, while unsourced unencyclopedic sentences like "Seditio was created by Olivier C." remain.  Really a CSD:G4, given Articles for deletion/Seditio.  Might be notable in the future, but it isn't yet.  If, somehow, this article survives AFD, it needs to be stubbed to get rid of the spam and peacockery. THF (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is your source for who created it Neocrome About Us. Kilandor (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is a self-published source, it is not a reliable source. Anyone can build a website and make some claims on it. That doesn't make the product notable. What you need is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Aecis·(away) talk 18:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The site is 7 years old, and i'm tired of this its pointless. The logic pointless, Its like a Social Club, or high school, where only the popular kids get in or are liked. According to your logic even though Joomla may tell who founded and started the project, Well I can't belive that, because somone else didn't tell me that. And now your going to come back and say well Joomla is a well known CMS. Well you can't pick and choose your logic on a as needed basis, it either applies all the time, or not. I refuse to further attempt to save this page, or continue in any such descussion. This page has been targeted for deletion twice now, while many more pages in the CMS Category ar fare worse designed, some have even been flagged for years, for the same reasons as you are attempting, and in the past why this page was deleted. Clearly what applies to one, doesn't apply to others. And yes go ahead and cite me the article just because 1 page is that way doesn't mean yours is. Thats fine, if this page goes through for deletion, I will be nominating all the other pages that fall into the same categories as this, and that are flagged as such already.


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. "Sources" currently on the article are associated with the product or unreliable. Google turned up nothing better. The assertions of notability of a few IP editors, who are likely meatpuppets, are not compelling. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; there's dozens of CMSs around; nothing seems to differentiate this from the pack. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 February 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.