Talk:WebGUI

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 27 June 2020, see discussion.
keep, 3 August 2007, see discussion.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Perl (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Perl, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PerlWikipedia:WikiProject PerlTemplate:WikiProject PerlPerl articles

I object to the deletion of this page. It may need to be edited, but should not be deleted.

From the wikipedia deletion page: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Rather than tagging this page for deletion, just tell the creator that it needs edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.110.101 (talk • contribs)

Definitely KEEP this article: WebGUI is an interesting CMS/framework. Actually, I do not understand why this article's notability is disputed. It is one of maybe a dozen interesting Open Source CMSystems (out of many more). Can someone explain, please? -- Zapyon (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Content

Recently, an IP editor (90.174.2.110) has been removing content due to it being "unsourced". While I agree that it was poorly sourced, content should be kept and improved rather than removed. After I added 3 sources, the IP editor decided that, since they were not independent sources, they should not be used. However, the policy on self-published sources states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as" they meet a number of requirements, which I believe are met in this situation. Accordingly, I propose that the content by kept in the article, and that efforts be made to find better sources, but that until any are located, the self-published sources be used. Thoughts?

--DannyS712 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 years is enough time to wait to provide independent sources. We kept the content while we waited for the independent sources. Now it is time to remove the content and wait you to provide any content backed with independent sources. If there are no independent sources, the content cannot be kept and the page is not notable enough to be kept in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.2.80 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP address has been dealt with at WP:ANI. – The Grid (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: Thank you! --DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]