Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Fat-Free Framework Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PHP_Fat-Free_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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Fat-Free Framework

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

The subject is a non-notable piece of software. The article was created by, and maintained by the developer of the software, and when challenged to produce reliable sources to show how the software is notable, he could not do so. My own searches for such sources have come up empty, and the current sources are to blogs or the Sourceforge project page of the software itself. -- Atama頭 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything either. Keeping this on my watchlist in case someone does. The convoluted name is probably abbreviated in some way... Pcap ping 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very obvious spam, but more importantly, no signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of how this is notable. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, it lacks coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Ekerazha (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising: The framework, with its gentle learning curve, can be used as a procedural code library by application developers with little or no object-oriented programming (OOP) knowledge, yet has the flexibility to accommodate the needs of those proficient in OOP concepts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PHP Architect is not a blog. It's a magazine. 112.201.166.93 (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- php|Architect is indeed a magazine and a WP:RS. The article currently cites an online news article from php|Architect; this seems like coverage any framework might get from them. They also mention "Since this framework is quite new there are almost no tutorials available yet." Can you find other sources for it at the moment? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, I looked at that magazine and it seems like it does have editorial oversight, see here where it discusses what happens with submissions to the site. But Jodi is correct, it's ironic but the coverage actually suggests that this software isn't notable, by pointing out how new it is. In the future, if this software becomes popular and gets a lot of attention it might merit a more neutral article on Wikipedia with independent coverage, but it doesn't merit inclusion at this time. -- Atama頭 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shallow mention, not really a complete article. Moreover, it's only one source, we should have multiple sources, find another reliable source and I could change my opinion. Ekerazha (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Based on my limited searching, this framework looks too new for coverage on a general encyclopedia (though I'm happy to change my mind if others find significant sources). Please transwiki it to [1] or another php-specific wiki Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:56, 5 March 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.