Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zikula (3rd nomination)

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. Christian75 cited some sources, but nobody took the bait, so delete it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zikula[edit]

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

I frankly would've PRODed if not for the other AfDs, nothing here is actually convincing and my searches simply found PR and trivial mentions, none of it acceptable of course. I examined the sources at the 2nd AfD but it's still not actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was your analysis of the sources that Dmitrij D. Czarkoff found in the previous AfD? What was your opinion about the history merged from PostNuke? Did you notice that this edit history dates back to 2002? Have you reviewed PHP-Nuke? What did you find when you reviewed the other 11 Wikipedia's with this topic? Did you look at the "What links here"? Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm seeing a lot of forum posts, primary sources, and blog posts, but very little by way of reliable sources that might establish WP:GNG. Going weak delete because there's an indication there are sources (other than those linked in the previous AfD, which I don't see as sufficient) in languages that are functionally unavailable to me. So I'm content to change my !vote if people can point out some decent ones, but for now we have an article about a company that probably doesn't pass GNG and is sourced entirely to its own content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per references in 2nd nomination. Christian75 (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the numerous CMS available. Granted that it is open source, but I don't see any significant coverage or any indication that this became popular. Compared to other topics, a software usually has a lot more sources available and there are numerous software for doing every little task. I tend to compare a software with other similar ones. Over here, I don't see any indication that this was every widely used. Neither did it gain any significant coverage during this time. I doubt this is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources = fails GNG. Neutrality^talk 19:05, 6 September 2016 (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.