Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyPHP

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]

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]