Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galileo 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. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo CMS

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

non-notable, no independent sources Deunanknute (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the objectiveness of the List_of_content_management_systems, as well as of Wikipedia itself, I needed to create the Galileo CMS stub article. The references I linked are from the project's official Web sites and projects development pages. If such sources are not recognized by Wikipedia as reliable and my article will be deleted because of that, please explain why in Wikipedia, and in List_of_content_management_systems exists many articles which sources are also only from the project's site and the development repositories? Here is a short list of such articles:

...

I will be thankful, if you explain what else need to be done in order to be create an Galileo CMS article for it to be included in the List_of_content_management_systems as the above mentioned articles are.

I have no affiliation with Galileo CMS. Moreover - I have also written another two stub articles (Strehler_(CMS) and ShinyCMS) concerning other content_management_systems written in Perl.

Iva.e.popova (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An in-development project whose available sources are announcements of the project proposal (such as a Linux Magazin brief article in 2012). No evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability at this point. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. All the references are announcements, blogs, or from the company itself. @Iva.e.popova: Regarding your question: " please explain why in Wikipedia, and in List_of_content_management_systems exists many articles which sources are also only from the project's site and the development " please see the article Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists Wikipedia is great but there is a lot of stuff that doesn't really meet the standards for wp:notability and you can't justify one bad article by pointing to others that are just as bad or even worse. I agree with you many of the articles you listed probably should be deleted as well. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2015 (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.