Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Radiant 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. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Radiant CMS

This article concerning a software program is unsourced, reads like an advertisement, and contains no assertion of notability. The software itself was released less than two months ago, and I could not find any info on the subject from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:VERIFY, WP:ADS, and WP:SOFTWARE. --Satori Son 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE as of now. Get back to us when it's a viable Drupal or PHP-Nuke competitor. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep subjects of Wikipedia are assessed on their own merits, not in relation to other more well-known subjects. Cynical 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and as per Dhartung. wikipediatrix 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Per wikipediatrix - also it's version 0.5.2, so surely not ready to be on WP yet. Martinp23 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Martinp23. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Sure, this is exciting (as in "wow, an actually working Ruby on Rails-based generic CMS!") and seems to net quite a few google hits (89,900 for "radiant cms"), especially on blogs. Yet, I have a tiny bit of worry that this might not be that widely used or widely discussed yet, and as the nom says, this is a rather new application. Since this is such a short stub right now, I don't see the harm of deleting this now and recreating it when (I'm saying "when" instead of "when or if", because all built-with-even-half-brain Rails-based things seem to get ridiculous amounts of hype =) the thing gets more mature and there's absolutely no question about it's notability. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've tried it and it's a very solid CMS, and extremely extensible. However, the article is very short because I've asked the author's permission to use some content from the project's webpage on the article and haven't heard from him yet. And:
  • It's not a Drupal competitor. It's supposed to be (and it is) a simpler CMS. The use of the Rails framework allows it to be easily extended to your own needs.
  • I don't think version-number can ever possibily be an issue regarding deletion. Reason/example? Look at enlightenment.
  • 119.000 google hits, not 89.900. :P
  • I don't know how the notability policy has been used regarding blogs, but as mentioned before, it's beeing talked about quite a lot. Anyway, I doubt that small OSS aplications will ever match the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE (at least in the way I'm interpreting it).

  Jvale 10:08, 19 August 2006 (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.