Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplicity PHP framework

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 to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity PHP framework[edit]

non notable website Asod123123 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although indeed an SPA, I don't see any evidence from reviewing their edit history that Asod123123's previous AFD nominations have been malicious or in bad faith. --SJK (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I edit with my enwiki account I'll probably get caught in a massive flame war, so I'll stick to anon here. The article in question is about a dubious PHP framework with an unprofessional website. The question is of PHP frameworks and the website behind this one; the PHP framework is in itself entirely non-notable, and the website even worse. Of "1700" search results for "Simplicity PHP Framework" (I myself get 10K...) the second is this article. *. and wiki. simplicityframework.com have no pagerank (that's null, not 0). Every man and his dog has a PHP framework; I've got three, and even mine have PR0. On the other hand, however, the website is well established, trac is not exactly easy to setup and a lot of work has gone into the code. It's a valid framework, even if it's not terribly famous. Would the closing sysop/bcrat therefore please note that the result of this AfD will most likely make or break the project. The question, then, is whether we let an inexperienced user (MOS somewhat lacking) create an article for a non-notable project backed by a non-notable website on the grounds that it has the potential to be succesful in future. All PHP frameworks seem to serve their niche purpose, and while they may not be terribly famous, people will appreciate a central information page for them. It also gives the framework a place in various comparison tables here on enwiki. So, I'm voting Keep on the grounds that this isn't a doomed article and we might as well build up the database. --118.208.57.103 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. It's actually quite developed and much discussed. Definite keep. --118.208.51.174 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe this PHP framework is in any way particularly notable. I mean, it's not like Zend for example. If it gets bigger and more notable, well, then I think the article could be justifiably recreated in those circumstances --SJK (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'justifiably recreated'? The whole point of the AFD process is to get rid of articles that have no future and should not be on Wikipedia. The fact that you suggest this possibility demonstrates the potential. --121.45.241.228 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite a bit of mainstream coverage, 3.9k ghits, not the most famous framework in the world, but not totally obscure. Anjouli (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a comment. Whether the project succeeds or fails should not influence the matter, nor whether the nom has a 'deletion only' account. We should judge the article. My own criterion is 'is this factual and would this be useful in an encyclopedia so someone could look it up'. Call it notability if you like. I'd say this just passes the test. Anjouli (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (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.