Deletion of Refinery CMS

Comment: strongly.  A software product needs to have "Notability in Wikipedia|long term historical notability" to support a stand-alone article.  This is ''an open source content management system written in Ruby as a Ruby on Rails web application with JQuery used as the JavaScript library'', and as such is |one of many similar packages, and every single bleeding one of them imagines that they merit an encyclopedia article.  Not even the independent review establishes that this has had any |significant effects on history, culture, or technology, and without that kind of significance, '''NO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:CORP)

Comment: Fails to meet notability because it is | yet another super-duper-widget erh, uhm, CMS 'solution.' A 'solution' BTW, which is full of DRY CRUD. Even says so, right there in the ad, erh, uhm, 'article.' Oh yeah, reads like an ad, too. Toss it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)

Comment: I've added more independent sources to the article establish notability ()  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/60.234.161.119|60.234.161.119
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: to the author) If you can improve the article sourcing I will give you a keep vote. I checked the CMS and seems good enough to have some independent coverage. Note thought that blog articles are rarely considered notable. Also, the number of followers and google group members cannot be used to establish verifiability () and notability () - these things that are necessary to get a wikipedia article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)