Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piranha 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha CMS

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

Does not seem to have established notability. the one sean 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I simply whish to know in what way it has not established notability? The framework has been around for over a year, has over a thousand downloads and we have close to 8000 views on our website which is mainly documentation intended for developers. In what way can I improve the article to prove notability? Tidyui (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section at Wikipedia:NSOFT#Inclusion can help with these questions. Please also note the policy on conflict of interest. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Tidyui (talk), the usual way to show notability is to use a citation to a reliable independent source. You might want to read the notability guidelines for example. Often popular software is mentioned in some independent trade publication. Or you could try a combine article on the company as well as the software with which it is associated (even if it does not "own" the software but publishes it as open source). Sometimes local press will cover a company getting funding, building a building, announcing quarterly results, etc. Even sources in other languages (e.g. Swedish) would suffice if a bi-lingual editor could verify that what is said in the article is paraphrased from that source in a neutral manner. Just self-claiming something was downloaded a zillion times is not enough: all sorts of people do that. Someone besides the writer or user of the software needs to care enough to publish something. Also, using the personal pronouns above might imply that the Wikipedia: Conflict of interest guidelines might apply. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to establish notability. ~KvnG 05:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. (For anyone doing searches, note the false positive of EDO Corporation's Piranha Command Management System.) AllyD (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links to external web publications about the projects. They are however in Swedish. --Tidyui (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is a blog post so not necessarily reliable. The other is a good start though some may argue that such a short article does not constitute significant coverage. We need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Do you have any others to offer? ~KvnG 22:20, 6 August 2013 (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.