Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhpWiki


 * 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  Keep (NAC) RMHED .  23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

PhpWiki

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

All sources cited are part of PhpWiki; no independent, reliable sources are given to establish notability. Therefore, the page should be deleted. Oboeboy (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Weak Keep, if it is true that is was "the first Wiki written in PHP to be publicly released", it makes it a bit notable... But I would not cry if it was deleted... SF007 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though it is the first, the article fails to cite any independent sources. If reliable, independent sources can be found, it should be kept. However, as the article currently lacks any such sources, it should be deleted.--Oboeboy (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see why being "the first Wiki written in PHP to be publicly released" would confer any automatic notability. What has the language used to write something got to do with notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. For web applications, the language used to write them is more important than most other software, as the user must choose a product written in a language supported by his hosting provider, therefore the language becomes a significant element in how the application to use is chosen, with PHP being the most popular choice these days. So, "first wiki in PHP" translates to "first wiki available to use with most hosting providers".  I don't think this is much, but it is something, and is suggestive that the software should be notable rather than evidence that it is. JulesH (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There would appear to be plenty of sources available from a Google Books search, but I'm afraid find this topic too boring for me to actually look through them to prove notability conclusively. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a couple of sources. I'm sure there are more to be had. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Upon the addition of independent sources. FingersOn  Roids  22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep L.A.L.'s sources show notability. JulesH (talk) 09:27, 23 February 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.