Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMS G3

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. Not enough actual sources have been put forth. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMS G3

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by the company's COO. I have not found any independent coverage of this product. Haakon (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation and listing of a well-established but until today not known ECMS which is similar like Day Software. Wikipedia is done for explaining things like software products and this has nothing to do with promotion. additional information about product will be added daily starting today. First independent articles in german available: [Brother Industries confirms usage of CMS G3] Aniello.bove (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Per above comments, the product has not been known "until today". This indicates to me that Wikipedia is being used as a press release to promote a product. Cindamuse (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help.I thought wikipedia is the right platform to explain what things are? The idea is only to explain that G3 is a ECMS. My intention is not at all a selling, promotional or whatever. If you have some feedback on how to change the article to not give the impression that this is a selling one, then I would be very glad, because it really has only the intention to explain what G3 is. I did find many other 'products' explained in wikipedia e.g. drupal, joomla etc. and also some less known one e.g. PierAniello Bove (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did scan a lot through wikipedia and did not find any confirmation that this typo of pages should be deleted! I did also check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. In addition, started to link it within other articles e.g. List of content management systems. Did find many similar articles and therefore do not know why this should be deleted at all. Aniello Bove (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Subjects covered by an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia need to have some level of notability. It would help if the article pointed to instances of significant coverage in reliable, third-party publications. I have looked for such, and came up empty. Haakon (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is lacking. -- 24.114.255.99 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable organisation. Fails WP:ORG. Article has no sources for example, and creator wastes his time insisting it's notable rather than add sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its not an organisation, its a product, so doesn't not fail WP:ORG. Its not the most popular or best selling CMS product, but there are certainly plenty of coverage on the web regarding it, particularly by telecommunications companies. The article is small, but alright. Add some additional sources, and it will be fine. scope_creep (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG 4.3 about products. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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.