Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzle CMS

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Fuzzle CMS]]=

:{{la|Fuzzle CMS}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzle CMS}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Fuzzle CMS}})

Contested prod. Article about a non-notable software product - basically just another content management system. Most of the references are from the company website and the others don't provide any evidence of notability (the only reference from a major independent publication, PC World, does not even mention the product). andy (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

  • There are some independent reviews from [http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/create-flash-plus-html-websites-with-fuzzle-cms-005702.php CMS Wire] and [http://cmsreport.com/press/2010/04/fuzzle-cms-brings-flash-sites-masses CMS Report]. Also can be mentioned the [http://groups.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=post.display&postid=15952 online presentation on UAFPUG] (Ukranian Adobe Flash Platform User Group) meeting - the meeting was about Flash CMS solutions. --Janvarev (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. The best source in the references doesn't mention the subject at all. I can't find any reliable sources providing significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. No good sources. I give little weight to those two reviews from CMS sites. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2010 (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.