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. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LEPTON CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable software product fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG, PROD tag was removed. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Promotional article. SPA creator thinks that deleting tags will make the issue go away. Doesn't work like that. Tigerboy1966  21:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Before I start, I want to stress that this account is not used as SPA (take a look at my registration date). And I don't think that "deleting tags will make the issue go away". I understand, I don't say that this was correct, maybe only a try to get a little bit time. However, let's come to hard facts. Take a look at this site: opensourcecms.com. This is an ordered list from the best rated cms to the worst ones. And LEPTON is the third one. So If LEPTON needs ads, wiki would be the wrong place. In addition, why are all wikipedians so agressive against this article? I have added third party references to the article. Sure, they are all in German but hey, LEPTON has got an international website and a English forum. So there should be a English article too. And I think that there will be english references too, not yet but soon. Don't the future but LEPTON has a future.
  And the reason why I know so much about it is very simple: I use this for my daily work. I am a web designer and LEPTON is great for this.--Develope PC (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please don't edit your comment time. It makes it look like you have something to hide. The original edit was at 19:11 (UTC) and then the time changed 3 times Pit-yacker (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what you think "SPA" means, but it stands for "single purpose account". Your account has never made a single edit not related to LEPTON CMS. I don't see why the date of registration of your account is relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reason for notability stated and little found to grant notability. Of the current references two are self references, one is a paragraph from a website that at least seems partly connected with the subject (My German isn't that good), and one is to an online newspaper. So we debatedly have one reference to esatablish notability with there. I'm not sure that opensourcecms.com - a website that by its very name suggests exists to push open source CMS systems can be used to establish notability either. Just because the subject has its own website (with forum) isnt reason to grant notability either. I could start my own website, but I dont expect a Wikipedia article on myself. As for other rationale to keep - Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, as far as I am aware there will be references one day isn't a reason to keep. Equally, I like it isnt a reason to keep either. On the single purpose account accusations/denile, I might find the "not a single purpose account" thing easier to swallow if User:Develope PC had more than one Article space edit on any of these Wikis [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], which wasn't related to the subject or its forerunner. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear promo Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is full of such language as "The operation is kept simple so that even inexperienced users can quickly learn how to modify content", "to ensure the future ease of handling", "the project founders were surrounded by a powerful team of volunteers", etc etc, and yet its creator thinks it is not promotional. An excellent example, it seems to me, of the sort of reason why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage writing about a subject one has a close connection to: nobody not closely involved in the subject could possibly produce stuff like that and honestly not see it as promotional. More importantly, though, even if the article were rewritten in non-promotional terms it would still qualify for deletion, as there is no evidence that the topic satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are four references. Two are links to LEPTON CMS's own web site. One is to a site which describes itself as publishing press releases. (See http://www.mittelstandcafe.de/about/, which states that it provides "vielen aktuellen Pressemitteilungen", i.e. many recent press releases.) The other reference is to a page which has one short paragraph on LEPTON CMS. That paragraph says "wir ... gehen davon aus, dass wir bis Mitte August LEPTON CMS 1.0 STABLE freigeben können", i.e. "we expect that by mid-August we will be able to release stable LEPTON CMS 1.0". Clearly not one of these references is an independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2012 (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.