Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zotonic

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zotonic[edit]

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

This was actually PRODed but later asked to be restored, presumably by the company itself as the history suggests, and whereas there were a few changes, there was still nothing actually substantial and convincing; my own searches have not found better than mentions. My PROD: "Searches have still not found anything better than trivial mentions, none of it actually amounts to the needed substance.". SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2011 Linux Journal product review appears to be the most substantial reference for this CMS, though I don't think it or the ReadWrite posting should have been sufficient to remove the Notability tag. There is also a section in "The Architecture of Open Source Applications", though that is primary, and a brief section in a book on "Building Web Applications with Erlang" but I don't think there is sufficient to meet the WP:NSOFT criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. References are mostly made up of primary sources. Lacks evidence of notability.Aust331 (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's research. Yvarta (talk) 14:03, 13 August 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.