Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeachPie


 * 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 no consensus. Several sources were presented as likely sufficient to meet GNG notability requirements, but no further discussion or investigation investigation has taken place. I have ignored the DELETE and SALT !Vote as unsupported and not policy based. There is no consensus the topic is notable, nor is there consensus the topic is not notable. There is also not consensus that Phlanger is an appropriate merge target. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

PeachPie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Not able to trace any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Draft:Peachpie (compiler) has been rejected 4 times. The article was created after bypassing the AfC process. An example of Citation overkill where 90% of presented sources are unreliable. Hitro talk 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:Green; font-family:Times New Roman">Hitro</b><b style="color:#FF00FF; font-family:courier; font-size:small"> talk</b> 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep What's this as a new technique for deleting stuff?  Say that there are too many sources? Are you going after Phalanger next? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - To be fair to the nominator, this article really does suffer from a severe case of WP:REFBOMB, as the vast majority of the nearly four dozen citations are definitely not usable as reliable sources (twitter posts, YouTube videos, blog posts, the PeachPie website itself, articles about completely other topics that don't mention this compiler at all, etc). However, there actually do appear to be a couple of legit sources buried in the mess.  Might I suggest that, rather than a straight deletion or keep decision, that this article be returned to Draft space until its actually ready to be published in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards?  Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I don't suppose you could point out 1 or 2 of these legit sources (I was wondering whether from your comment you'd already found them, to save a massive hunt by us) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify - I'll give the benefit of the doubt and AGF. – The Grid  ( talk )  20:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE AND SALT - not notable, and will continue to cause problems if recreation is allowed. Clnreee (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively to Phalanger (compiler), where it is discussed. Too many citations is a bogus reason for deletion, as this is an editing issue and AFD is not for cleanup. On the issue of notability, I found third party coverage in InfoWorld, TheNextWeb, i-programmer, and PHP magazine. The last is just a PR announcement, but the Infoworld article is a reasonable source and the TheNextWeb and i-programmer sources are not gold standard, but I think qualify as independent sources. In terms of notability, amount of coverage is right at threshold for me, but perhaps under threshold for the AfC editors. What is clear is that there is verifiable information on this topic and our policy is to preserve verifiable information per WP:ATD. A reasonable compromise that preserves such information would be a selective merge based on the reliable sources--an expansion of the Legacy section in the Phalanger article could be a good target. Hence, merge. -- 23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would we merge to Phalanger? PeachPie supersedes Phalanger and all our Phalanger article says about it is, " Phalanger was discontinued in favor of the more modern PeachPie compiler,"  So why would we merge to the obsolete topic and delete the current one? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have already asked 5 questions in this AfD but haven't given a single policy based rationale to keep this article. Please do so. <b style="color:Green; font-family:Times New Roman">Hitro</b><b style="color:#FF00FF; font-family:courier; font-size:small"> talk</b> 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a relevant and useful article on a notable topic, that of a contemporary and widely-used software product. It also has forty-three references already, but you seem to claim that this makes it non-notable, i.e. that there are no substantial secondary sources referring to it. I think it's your call for deletion which faces the uphill struggle here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.