Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyPHP

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 and redirect to WAMP. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EasyPHP

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

Improper restoration of article: easily qualifies as G4, as all the problems that were initially noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs (2nd nomination) still exist. Since some take an unnecessarily literal view of G4, it seems that we will have to have to repeat the AFD discussion.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gong show 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I found a single mention in google scholar and several mentions in a couple of O'Reilly Media books, but there's just not enough there to build an article. Lots of pointers on how to install and use the software, but nothing discussing the software proper (particularly no reviews). In my opinion, doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single mention? I see 479 on GScholar. It's not really a software, it's a local-host development platform which includes pre-configured softwares (Apache, Phpmyadmin & MySQL), I guess the proper technical term for this is Solution stack. Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a poor choice of words on my part. I'm guessing that I meant a single paper that I could classify as "used" instead of "mentioned", but even that's not clear. Thanks for pointing that out; I'll definitely be more careful (and give links) in the future. That said, I'm still not seeing the kind of reviews and articles discussing EasyPHP that we might hang an article on. If you have pointers to those I'll definitely reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT; there simply isn't enough coverage to keep the article. The fact the article was written from scratch is enough for it to be "substantially different" and not G4-worthy, regardless of concerns in the prior AfD. Particularly as at least two admins have expressed the view that it is different enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but not G4). It needs to demonstrate notability. So far it is failing to do so. Four sources, and none of them even in English? That's a product that's having to scrape the barrel pretty hard. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement on English Wiki for references to be in English.--Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same as last time, sources do not demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (failing that, Redirect to WAMP) at 422 hits on G Books, 479 on GScholar & 560,000 hits on Google it easily passes WP:GNG IMO. Also note that one of its versions has been downloaded some 225,000 times on Cnet further indicative of popularity. Additionally, per WP:Otherstuffexists, there is no reason to have articles on the Linux & MAC equivalents (cf. MAMP, DAMP (software bundle), Bitnami, Apache2Triad) and ignore EasyPHP being the popular Windows equivalent. It will be really absurd of Wikipedia to have a red link for something as popular. (note the number of people looking for it even as it has been deleted [1])--Tachfin (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be redirected, then a merge to phpMyAdmin would seem more appropriate.

LAMP is commonplace, WAMP almost as much so. EasyPHP is (AIUI) no more than a bundle of WAMP with added PhpMyAdmin. Notability for a bundle is difficult. One has to show that not only are the components notable (we surely agree here that they are), but that they resultant bundle specifically has gained some interest from independent sources. I'm not seeing this. As the only vaguely interesting feature to this WAMP bundle is the inclusion of PhpMyAdmin (not generally seen as an essential part of WAMP), then that's a better place to hold this content.

Also an article to hold some encyclopedic content. This article is still no more than its See also list. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GHITS are not any evidence of notability, Tachfin. There are 254,000 hits on my username, for example. "EasyPHP" is almost certainly going to turn up lots of "PHP made easy" type how-to guides, for example. Also, WP:OSE is an argument to avoid, not one to use. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukeno94 I doubt your username returns any hits on Gbooks/Gscholar. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF ≠ WP:Otherstuffexists --Tachfin (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 hits on Gbooks, 1 or two on Gscholar, so yes, it does. And your argument will be based on a lot of "PHP made easy", or "easy PHP"-type results, not EasyPHP, for the most part. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can buy that references are mostly in French because this is a "francophone website", according to the last reference (whatever that means for software, presumably that documentation is mostly in French or something like that). But I don't think those sources confer enough notability for Wikipedia. Coverage is brief, and look at what else is the table for the last source phpindex.com, phpfrance.com etc. These may be worth a mention in the articles on PHP etc. as the favorite forums or distributions in a given country, but aren't notable enough for stand-alone pages. The first book, which has a couple of pages about it is really a bottom-feeder publication; 90% of that is screenshots of the installer at every step. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WAMP seems reasonable to me as I can see this as a search term (stats.grok.se indicates "EasyPHP has been viewed 5037 times in the last 90 days."). Technical 13 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2013 (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.