Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seagull PHP Framework
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seagull PHP Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article have not any reliable source therefore I don't think it is notable. –ebraminiotalk 07:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has references from PHP Architect, a prestigious PHP journal, PHP Hacks, PHPIt and Category4. The references are all listed as external, so should be integrated into the article, but I don't see how you can say it has no reliable sources? Greenman (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they was not on reference section and in fact I didn't check them. Sorry. –ebraminiotalk 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: indiscriminate collections of PHP tools' reviews with no editorial oversight don't contribute to notability of this framework, and the only reliable source I could find (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&u=http://www.tecchannel.de/sicherheit/news/1745147/sicherheitsluecke_in_seagull_php_framework_gemeldet/index.html%7C2=Seagull PHP Framework vulnerability by TecChannel) is too routine to qualify for significant coverage and too lone to qualify for multiple sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2012 (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.