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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CubeCart[edit]

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

There are no reliable secondary sources and the article is written like an advertisement. The article was tagged with the ((notability)) template back in April 2007[1], and the article hasn't improved. d'oh! _talk 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not an expert in the area but I do know that this is one of the main competitors to OsCommerce. It is a well established software (the article itself has been created some good 4 years ago) and it is notable. It does feature countless hits on google talking specifically about the software. HOWEVER, the article still needs urgent improvement AND third party sources but in no ways ought to be deleted due to its poor quality alone. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main competitor != notable. OsCommerce has a lot of competitors, and making an article on all of them is not a good idea, because outside their websites, fan website and maybe a few books and articles on how to use them, there is no reliable sources to build an article on. Remember primary sources and original research is not allowed, unless there is reliable sources to back them up. Also I am not saying they shouldn't be mention, there is tons of room on Electronic commerce or Shopping cart software to include them. d'oh! _talk 01:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with what you said and your points are very much valid. They reinforce my position of keeping the article. The whole problem with establishing notability for PHP software is that there are no reliable publication that reviews them. I am sure you agree that OsCommerce is notable. Even still, if you look at the OsCommerce article, absolutely no reference is third party. In theory it should be tagged. But it isn't. Why? There is no way to come up with a "PHP Software Review Magazine" which would have a very very limited audience. In fact, that was the reason why the Software Notability Guidelines failed. As far as competition, shopping carts alone create at least 343 competitors for OsCommerce. I absolutely agree with you that creating an article on all of them wouldn't be a good idea. If you look at the Comparison of shopping cart software there are only a handful being even mentioned under PHP, not 344. Moreover, out of these, only 7 have articles which I'd say is a reasonable number. I am no expert, however. I just use PHP software. I think we need an expert in the subject to really establish the notability. My position however still remains the same. That as an user of PHP software, I happen to believe that CubeCart is notable, well established and that its article still need improvement. -- Loukinho (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is unfair PHP software doesn't get a chance because their are no reliable publication for them, but the whole point of requiring reliable publication is to void having articles filled with primary sources and original research. There is no way to build a good article without reliable publication. Also OsCommerce is not notable either, for the same reasons as CubeCart and I will be tagging it. I still believe mentioning CubeCart at one of the many articles about eCommerce is the best option. d'oh! _talk 03:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Needs improvement but seems notable enough. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have cleaned up the article in question and honestly, I don't see how the article can be considered advertising. I have also added a reference. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to save, the only ref in the article is mention in a list. I've found passing mention in some articles on ecommerce in general, but nothing close to significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2010 (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.