Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akelos PHP Framework Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akelos_PHP_Framework

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. JamieS93 16:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akelos PHP Framework

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

I was only able to find a single reliable source for the framework ([1]). Subject fails WP:Notability as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Odie5533 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, I'm for deletion. Ekerazha (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The unique provided source doen't support notability Rirunmot 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems widely discussed and in use, a random sample of ghits: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. It is also cited (albeit passingly) in a book [7]. While I agree each of these sources can be weak, the overall number and interest around the program seems to document notability. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources that show its notability? --Odie5533 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See last sentence of my comment above. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty weak keep reason. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the links look RS or nearly so to me (phpdeveloper.org or php.devreview.com). It has also to be said that open source software, even when hugely notable in the real-world meaning of the word, is not necessarily covered in the standard publishing avenues. See Parchive , its AfD and delrev, for a case study. I'd say that there is a strong case for notability, even if a bit off standards. My worry is that strict application of the standard GNG in this case is at odds with the real world. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (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.