Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhPepperShop


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PhPepperShop

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

No 3rd party reliable sources to indicate WP:CORP notability. Prod was disputed. Created by a single purpose account. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * delete per nom. No evidence of notability. - 7-bubёn >t 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No third-party sources, and no proven notability. Only edits to the page are by a single purpose account, me or nom.  Genius  101 Guestbook  23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per nom.Bildstit (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No RS on this article at all and it smells a bit spammy Lets  drink  Tea  02:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article also seems to only be blatant advertising.  Eugene2x► talk 04:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete I made this Wikipedia account, because it is my first contribution in the English Wikipedia, that is right. I usually use the German Wikipedia. The Article about the PhPepperShop is not intended to be spam or advertising at all. It describes the project's root and how it evolved. You do not find anything like 'key features', 'latest, best technology...' or such things. Nor do you find any pricing information or marketing text in it. Similar to the wider spread OsCommerce project it is a shopping cart solution also mentioned in Comparison of shopping cart software. After first comments regarding the PhPepperShop article, I brought together many links from third party institutions, which have no relationship to the project PhPepperShop (external links). Of course it is up to you to decide, wheter this article is spam or advertisement. Since I am not an expert in certain fields to write about in the Wikipedia, I am an expert in E-Commerce and thought it might be useful to have some background information on this project, even though it is dual licensed. Fontajos (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (Swimming against the current.) As of the current version while I comment, I don't find any hint of spam or obtrusive CoI. I find plenty of ghits, several of which are definitely not promotional (referring to vulnerabilities to hacking in version 1.4, for example). Notability? This is not the sort of software you will find many newspaper reports about unless something goes totally haywire and an order placing for three brown widgets results in a tank regiment crossing someone's border. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. It is easy to demonstrate total non-notability (i.e. 0 ghits even under the alternative spelling suggested would be a good indication) but not easy sometimes to show that a product in a comparatively small and specialised playing area does possess this quality. I've just done a copy-ed including minor revisions to wording. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2009 (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.