| Revision as of 09:03, 16 January 2010 editPcap (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,285 editsm →Silex Flash CMS← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:14, 17 January 2010 edit undoPcap (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,285 edits →Silex Flash CMS: tagNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| :: Also the creator of the page, ], appears to have a ], see link on his user page. ] ] 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | :: Also the creator of the page, ], appears to have a ], see link on his user page. ] ] 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per significant coverage in the available ], which demonstrates ]. ] (]) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per significant coverage in the available ], which demonstrates ]. ] (]) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ** '''Sockepuppet of banned user'''. See ]. ] ] 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:14, 17 January 2010
Silex Flash CMS
- Silex Flash CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reference review:
- Official site: Reliable, Not independent of the subject.
- Sourceforge: Reliable, Trivial.
- GNU- Reliable, Trivial.
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak deleteWeak keep. Evidence by Pohta ce-am pohtit looks like enough for notability now. I still would like the article to be cleaned up to avoid reading so much like advertisement, but the SourceForge and O'Reilly coverage is independent. Looks too much like a vanity article. But a 3rd party source or two could convince me otherwise. LotLE×talk 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)- Comment. It was FOSS of the month in July on SourceForge. It has a blurb in this O'Reilly blog. It's also included in this round-up but it's not a critical review. Also covered here, which a soft of company blog. Pcap ping 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I was also able to find two short good/bad commentaries here and here, another non-critical round-up here, but they are all on pretty obscure sources. Pcap ping 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- The nature of the sources used to show notability necessary depends on an article's subject matter. Mere "obscurity" should not cause sources to be discounted, if they are considered to be reliable. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the prominence of the sources matters, because we'd have every topic from a college newspaper here otherwise (like every student who had a paragraph written about him, and so forth). In this case all the sources blog-like, and with the exception of the O'Reilly one are self-published. The O'Reilly blog only reproduces the official blurb of the software, and asks readers about their opinion. Some of the other look like splogs or aggregators of product descriptions at best. Pcap ping 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also the creator of the page, User:Lexoyo, appears to have a WP:COI, see link on his user page. Pcap ping 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per significant coverage in the available RS, which demonstrates notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sockepuppet of banned user. See User talk:Werner Heisenberg. Pcap ping 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)