Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHPulse


 * 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. —  Xy7  (talk)  02:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PHPulse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

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) 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, [], [], [| Freshmeat entry], [], []. 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)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Notability (software) Equendil Talk 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete per a historical page? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Back up to WP:N I guess. Equendil Talk 22:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete as failing WP:N/WP:PRODUCT; there simply isn't any substantial coverage out there. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Magazines and Books, huh? You mean like this sourceforge project which has none of and is a wikipedia page []??? 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)

heres another one without references in books or magazines [], and another [] in fact you can go down the entire list here [] 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) 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 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. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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... []! 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)
 * 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)

Free software is not [|open 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)

And to answer your point on notability, after reading the notability section, I saw this... []. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Yes, you've provided sources, but they aren't acceptable sources for establishing notability. Listings on Sourceforge, and moreover source code, are not acceptable means of determining notability. If they lead to secondary sources which discuss the subject in such a way as to meet the general notability guideline, then fine, but on their own they cannot be used to establish notability. We'll get to the hundreds of other projects in due time, and review them, and delete them if they're truly non-notable. But today, we're dealing with this project. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response According to wikipedia, they are. But it doesn't matter because you accept some sites under what I have submitted but target others arbitrarily for deletion. Rules are applied without reason and only when you want to apply them. I have better things to do with my time like code than waste them arguing with you people any further. With over 200,000 open source projects on Sourceforge and mine being in the top 2000, and being easily referenced everywhere, well documented, not grossly exaggerated in the listing, I am not even CLOSE to being a bad submitter. The fact that you seem to be targetting me as a bad submitter shows your lack of judgement and inability to fairly apply rules to everyone. Just delete it already because you have no ability to apply the rules fairly to all projects listed in Wikipedia.Phpulse (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions. 1) Have you read and understood the conflict of interest policy? 2) Is Sourceforge a 3rd party reliable source in accordance with the verifiability and  reliable sources policies or is the content there in anyway user submitted? 3) Is there any 3rd party sources at all (that aren't in the article yet) that should be there? If so where are they and why haven't you added them yet? Why do you insist on insulting and accusing people instead of addressing the problems with the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response 1) When reading submission guidelines, it can be acceptable for the author to submit. It is stated as such. It is not BLACK AND WHITE and it states as such. You just have to judge whether the content is as impartial as possible. This allows for COI submissions. 2) see first response. Publishing of source code has been accepted in the past. Regardless, it is not just the amount, Wikipedia scientific guidelines talk about the BREADTH and the documentation of the work... which there is. This is merely a beginning listing for others to add to. I am NOT embellishing. And to answer your question about 3rd party sources, you'd be hard pressed to find that about ANY OPEN SOURCE PROJECT!!! All open source project publications are tied in some way to project contributors. Hence, you could find COI everywhere. Even in some closed source software publications. So again.. good luck with that. People have redistributed, Zend ( the maintainers of PHP) has copied my code in their framework. It's GPL'd code... it happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You know Forget it. I don't even know why I'm bothering. You guys aren't even reading the rules you are trying to apply much less don't even understand open source. You love quoting rules but don't bother reading them. You've made up your mind what you want to do regardless of research or reading your own rules. If I have to deal with this every day, I'd rather NOT ven be a part of Wikipedia. I don't even care anymore.Phpulse (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment With that, I leave you on what all editors should practice but you prefer to preach... [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Oh and for the record, if you thought this was about HITS or TRAFFIC, I get next to nothing from Wikipedia (7 hits so far out of 90,000 this month). Most of my traffic comes from the community of sites that link to or support the project. I'm only doing this for the listing... which I have wasted far too much time argueing with you people over. Please just start your holy war on open source already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know I'm gonna take a major hit here and probably get in trouble but, grow up a little. This isn't about YOU. It is about the article in question and whether it meets the criteria. It isn't about other stuff (although if you'd remotely attempted to be civil to people here and discuss the actual issues instead of attacking people and making unfounded accusations I have no doubt that some of them would have looked into it if only to help the encylopedia get better. Have you even tried to help fix some of these other articles? No. You just keep trying to use them as an excuse for why your baby should be allowed to stay. Find a way to contribute constructively or follow through on the threats you already made above and go away. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.