Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHPixie Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PHPixie

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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PHPixie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all including for the applicable notability, there's nothing better convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:GNG. Of the few gnews hits they are minor mentions. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Articles need multiple RS independent refs and this has just 1, currently a deadlink, from a german magazine. The other refs are blogs, incidental mentions, and directory listings. A search turned up no further significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable software with no working reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.