Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard PHP Library (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Standard_PHP_Library_(2nd_nomination)

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard PHP Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Almost one-year ago this article was nominated for deletion. "This could be expanded into a good article", people said, and a year later, no one has actually been bothered enough to do this. Abandoned articles are highly error prone as the Seigenthaler incident demonstrates. Further, I still stand by all the arguments I made last year. The Standard PHP Library isn't developed independently of the language as the C standard library and C++ standard library - it is part of the language. As such, this article no more deserves to exist than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BCMath, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects (2nd nomination). Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too small, too non-notable, too unreliable... Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this article had more information, I says merge into PHP, but it's too small. And, per Misterdiscreet, PHP library is part of the PHP language and don't presents a new solution or approach. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:DICT and this 3.5 year old article is only a stub. Artene50 (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no content worth mentioning, if anyone genuinely feels they can write a worthwhile article on the topic, they can do so just as effectively with this deleted as with it not. --Stormie (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2008 (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.