Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbrains wcms Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forbrains_wcms

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 - unanimous except for COI editors' and socks' comments. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forbrains wcms (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)

This article (created by the author of the software in question) has been prodded, deleted, re-created (as is allowed in the case of prod), prodded again, deprodded by the article creator, tagged for speedy G11, and now had its speedy declined by an admin. Some sort of consensus should be reached, so either G4 applies to future re-creations, or people stop tagging the article. While I agree the article is not spammy enough for a speedy, I do not believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The creator added a list of "Notable Users", but none of them seem notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, so I don't see how they establish the notability of the product. Other than that, there are a few reviews on Alexa and another site, but as user-generated content, these do not make for significant coverage from reliable sources. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable (as of current) software. Unable to locate multiple items of significant coverage from third parties. Do note that, in general, speedy deletion only applies to articles which do not assert any notability. If the article says its subject is notable for some reason, it has to be PRODed or go to AfD, for a community decision on whether or not such is true. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notable sources; while it’s impossible to prove a negative, there are zero Google Books and Google Scholar hits. The Alexa description is not a review; it’s a site description that Alexa puts on every site (and, should I note, the site has an Alexa rating over over 2,000,000, which isn’t exactly a popular site) and ReviewCentre is a place that anyone can add a review to (it is essentially a message board for WP:N purposes) Samboy (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM. LotLE×talk 09:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's hardly any coverage of this. Most of the references are some users, and the rest have been analyzed above. Pcap ping 09:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: At the time of writing Version 5 of the system is used on 261 different websites across 239 different clients. There are companies who resell the software in Shropshire, Northampton, Yorkshire and Wales. We also take clients directly from searches in Google for terms like "Optimised Website" / "Optimised CMS". The software has been independantly reviewed in the past and has featured in business-to-business magazines in England and Wales. The system has been shown at meetings of UKITA and has many followers in the UK. The article was initially written due to clients asking why it was not featured on the List of content management systems page in the SaaS section. I wrote the article based on other articles listed on that page and had it reviewed by four clients. I'm very happy to change the content or add sources of notability. If anyone could give some samples of what is acceptable I will happily put some in place. Sendalldavies (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any references in the article to the (hopefully independent) reviews that you mention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added two references in the Sources of Notability section. These are not online references, but refer to published magazines. I am not aware of any critics reviews published online. There is an open invitation to all technology critics to review the system. Sendalldavies (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Under Section 6 of Notability I would like to request that the "expert-subject" tag be used to attract the views of a UK based expert on this subject. Such an expert is likely to have come across this system, or heard of companies who use it or sell it under their white-label brand; hence be able to offer a view regarding notablity in the UK. Sendalldavies (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Notability has to be demonstrated by citing significant third-party coverage by independent sources. Having an expect claim he has heard of someone who use it won't be sufficient, I'm afraid. Haakon (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Midlands Business Magazine featured a two page article in their November 2007 edition and Mobile Business Magazine wrote an article on the service which was published in their January 2008 edition. Both are significant magazines reaching thousands of subscribers. The reviews were free of charge, and written by their editors following trials of the service. Sendalldavies (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sendalldavies (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sockpuppetry and for using Wikipedia to promote his company, Forbrains wcms. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be an advert. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a notable CMS system resold by my company in the UK. Jkel49 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Jkel49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • How is it notable? Haakon (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jkel49 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Sendalldavies (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be spam masquerading as an article. Can not find signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a well known Content Management System in the UK. I read the article mentioned by SendallDavies in Midlands Business Magazine in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.255.2 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 157.203.255.2 (talk · contribs)has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Sendalldavies (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: with a comment that every keep voiced here has been from a WP:SPA / sockpuppet of the author of the article. Most are now blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.