Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatomy of PHP-based CMS
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —fetch·comms 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anatomy of PHP-based CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See talk page for other arguments, but this article's title is misleading, the piece is horribly written, and it has received no attention from its author despite criticisms over an extended period. Furthermore, I don't see how to make it even marginally useful to anyone without a complete rewrite by an expert. It's an embarrassment.Lfstevens (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The problems mentioned by nominator sound as if they could be fixed, but as far as I can tell this is essentially original research. --Lambiam 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, definitely OR, nothing to save here. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I don't give a rat's behind about original research, but there's nothing you can say about CMS systems that are written specifically in PHP that adds any value over and beyond a general article on CMS systems (which you can tell from the fact that this article in fact doesn't say anything about them). -- BenTels (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, broad generalizations which might be interesting, but I can't see how this could be re-written to be encyclopedic. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 00:32, 18 September 2010 (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.