Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P4A

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. The version under discussion was the work of a single author who has requested deletion. There was another version in history, but it was subject to deletion as a copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P4A

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of importance, no third-party sources, was modified from blatant advertising to what it is now: a way to gain attention by saying, "hey look, it's on Wikipedia!" Only link is to the official website. Also, obvious WP:COI as the article says it was created by "Fabrizio Balliano" and the article's author is none other than User:Balliano. — Timneu22 · talk 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did not create the page (created by a user), I just modified it cause it was a copy&paste of our wiki and wikipedia said it was not valid... the project is 7 years old, we do not need pubblicity, I added this info just because p4a was added to the framework lists (not by me again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#PHP) but it did not have its own page. If I used my own name because I don't need to hide... anyway there are no links to commercial website and we're not selling anythis... Balliano · talk 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article exists (or appears to exist) merely to state that some product/service/whatever exists, it is often listed under advertising. If you cannot provide third-party sources that explain the importance or significance of the topic, it is likely that an article exists only to gain attention for the product/service/whatever; that's advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 19:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. Self-promotion is the only reason for the article's existence. Qworty (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 10 references, anyway I don't care about pubblicity so delete that page and keep all the other commercial frameworks that are actual pubblicity, if that's the way you handle things. Balliano (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment If you would like to nominate any of the publicity articles you have in mind for deletion, then that would be very helpful in reducing the backlog. In the meanwhile you may like to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. As far as the references are concerned, they include a blog post, Sourceforge (a download site which provides the software), several pages which just give a brief acknowledgement that P4A was used in some programming task, and a few appearances on the sort of site that provides brief reviews of almost any kind of freeware or open source software. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Zend Framework page (which is not pubblicity, it's a great product and totally deserves to be on wikipedia) has references pointing to blog posts (2 from the same author) and many subsites of the project itself (forums, contributor guide, press releases from the ZF team itself) and this is the biggest project of all that kind of projects... I don't want to say "hey this page is spam, not mine" because I don't want to accuse anyone while I'm involved in this thread, anyway I want to say that php framework are small projects only for developers so none has a lot of references, maybe none should stay on wikipedia? About sourceforge, it's an independent vendor, and the team has no way to fake the stats so it is a reference, and also it's a reference for the community award (involved more than 100,000 projects) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.224.63 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone tried to edit this to get rid of obvious advertising, it's either been put back in, or never really removed:

a web application framework and RAD for producing event-driven stateful web applications....

(Stateful???)

easy to install, portable and modern...

And it attempts to claim minimal significance are lacking: one of the most voted PHP Frameworks in PHPMagazine's PHP Frameworks Trends.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all the motivation given are completely wrong, anyway this is a waste of time, deleted that page, wikipedia has beed highly criticized for its structure and this is another proof of blindness, continue this way, you're doing a great job and PS: check all other pages cause wikipedia it's full of spam and you keep yelling at a floss project which is NOT spamming anything. farewell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balliano (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I can't blank the page... the system keeps restoring it, delete is ASAP so we're all free to waste time on something else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balliano (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 November 2010 (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.