Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHPulse

PHPulse

A web software tool. The author cheerfully admits to a COI and clearly thinks that he is exempt from providing reliable sources. Is it a notable product? Sgroupace (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability (software) Equendil Talk 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Delete per a historical page? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Otherwise, just plain delete as failing the notability and verifiability policies and guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article shouldn't remain unless reliable sources are added. Google didn't tell me very much, but I did notice one forum thread from April 2007. Unfortunately forum posts aren't reliable sources, so more study would have to be done by someone who wanted to keep the article. Since PHP is a fairly mature technology, and PHPulse was created in 2001, it is conceivable that this product may have been covered somewhere in books or articles, if it is notable. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N/WP:PRODUCT; there simply isn't any substantial coverage out there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googlecode project recently deleted and moved to Sourceforge. Projects is in process of being moved entirely to Sourceforge. Searching on ENGLISH google presents lots of references to the framework but try Phillipines, Germany and France. The project is very popular in other countries due to early support fo internationalization within framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Some entries of note easily found within Google (and not added by myself) www.dzone.com/links/rss/the_fastest_php_based_mvc_framework.html, [[1]], [[2]], [Freshmeat entry], [[3]], [[4]]. The mentions are all over the place and it is mirrored everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you found some Google hits, but none of them are what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. We'd like to see reviews in publications, such as magazines or books. It is also good to have mentions on edited web sites that maintain a reporting staff, such as http://www.zdnet.com or http://www.cnet.com. Blogs and forum postings generally can't be used. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines and Books, huh? You mean like this sourceforge project which has none of and is a wikipedia page [[5]]??? Again... I have followed other project examples. Plenty of other open source projects exist on wikipedia without magazine publications and with minimal references. If this is an issue, and indeed I don't meet the guidelines, then indeed we should delete my page and all other open source project pages which fail to have anything in print as well. Please start this crusade... or better yet. I'll help if this is what wikipedia insists is proper editor behaviour. I'll be more than happy to start enforcing and marking ANY page that does NOT have anything in PRINT as deletable and SPAM. Unfortunately, I think you will find that a rather hard rule to enforce in an age of the internet. But if that's why you are going to delete this entry, then please be so kind as to enforce the rule en masse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heres another one without references in books or magazines [[6]], and another [[7]] in fact you can go down the entire list here [[8]] and find TONS that do not meet your guidelines and should ALL be removed for the same reasons you state my page is invalid. So again, I ask, what is the REAL reason that the page is invalid because if these other pages ARE valid and in Wikipedia, there must be some other agenda as to why my page is not?Phpulse (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Other articles aren't exactly relevant here, please read WP:OSE and WP:INN for a better explanation of quite why. In short, those other subjects may or may not be notable, and if not, it may be time to bring them to AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you stated that I was not being targetted, I would expect that entire list to be gone over and most of those projects removed for the very reasons being listed for my removal. IF... that is, if indeed you are applying these rules fairly and to everyone. Unfortunately, I've already seen how one editor HAS pursued me and targetted me to the point that a complaint DID have to be filed against them... so you can understand my disbelief in this being fairly applied. But we'll see. I may just be the first head to fall in the 'great open source cleansing' of wikipedia. Phpulse (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... and for the record. I Do have resources (after doing my research and reading through the guidelines). The same as all the other open source projects... [[9]]! A reference to the sourceforge project is a perfect example and many use it. It is not being used inaprpriately and many on that list use it for there ONLY listing. The project was also previously on Google Code (you will find the defunct listing in Google) and is also on Freshmeat. All these fit the criteria and even surpass what existing projects have listed. Source code (and existing documentation) for open source projects are by their very nature, self-published and hence meet the criteria.Phpulse (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI submitter obviously doesn't understand WP:N. Wikipedia is not a free software hosting or advertisement project. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free software is not [source software]. And one of the top 2000 open source software projects hardly falls under EVERY open source project. But again, if you wish to start APPLYING these rules fairly to all projects, you'll be removing nearly all projects on wikipedia. Bad idea. So again, by definition, publishing of source code falls under rules of self-publishing. So the reason for removal and the original AFD is moot.Phpulse (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your point on notability, after reading the notability section, I saw this... [[10]]. You are to ask the where to look for sources from the expert... and as I'm the project maintainer, I am the expert. As such, sources have been provided. And if you still think such sources are not satisfactory, notability guidelines state 'Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles...'. Being the main developer of the project, I have provided links, documentation, source code links, and source code is as unbiased as you can get as it doesn't say anything but what the code does. Again, I point to the fact hundreds of other projects exist under these same guidelines on wikipedia.