Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenith Content Management System Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zenith_Content_Management_System

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. JForget 01:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Content Management System (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)

Contested prod. Non-notable software - no independent references in the article per WP:RS and nothing on Google either. This search yields 38 results and this search yields 39, none of them proving notability. andy (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith is a popular term used by a number of products, particularly in the software arena. As such, it is difficult to locate good quality references, and finding the initial reference is now proving tricky, especially since Wikipedia is now so popular, it's ripped off by many other companies! A search of just 40 results, therefore, is not statistically significant!

When I created the page, I was aware of the need to find references, and as such have duly added a number of them. I am currently seeking an article which discussed this CMS, and will add it in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvidnetwork (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the point about the Google searches is that despite the obvious popularity of the word Zenith, when used in conjunction with "Content Management System" or "CMS" nobody seems to be paying it any attention. Coupled with the fact that the system "was deemed unsuitable for future development, and is currently only in an extended support phase" I think we can be confident that it is not and never has been notable in the sense required by wikipedia. Or indeed in any other sense. andy (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Content management systems" seem to be a dime a dozen. They're back-office software that no one outside the IT department or their supervisors ever interacts with. And every minor entry in this crowded field imagines itself an encyclopedia-worthy subject. Would that Heracles divert a river onto this mess! This article's commendable candor seems to indicate that its promoters are struggling to make it work, and have released multiple versions with completely different chassis. At any rate, nothing indicates that this product has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real product at the moment. Older version seem to be of no importance as well. Minimum coverage on the web. Limited encyclopedic value. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 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.