Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formidable for TYPO3

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formidable for TYPO3

A nonnotabloe piece of open-source software Timurite (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the GNG. ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be removed. The team behind this software is working hard to produce a robust and free solution for rapid php-dev in a TYPO3 environment. In what way should the article be updated not to be considered a AfD ? Please tell me. Schneiderjerome 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how hard people are working on it, or how important it is to them - if it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria it can be deleted. There need to be enough references from reliable, third-party sources to assert that it's worthy of an article. Otherwise it could just be a school weekend project for all the verifiability. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's stated here WP:FAILN that For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. Also, that there's a procedure to follow before honnestly judjing an article, notably to ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources. Being the article's creator, I can assure you that nobody ever asked me to cite sources before considering deletion (which btw is to be considered as a final resort). I personnaly feel that the deletion is not fair in that case; furthermore, if you simply search for 'formidable TYPO3' in Google, you'll see that many third-party sources are actually using and talking about the Formidable project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schneiderjerome (talk • contribs) 10:03, April 24, 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per general notability guidelines. I can't see significant coverage in a reliable source. Chzz ► 07:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another "application development framework" related to a "content management system". In other words, this would be of interest chiefly to programmers or web designers, and is unlikely to receive much notice in edited general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ihcoyc. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 15:41, 27 April 2009 (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.