Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhpFox

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PhpFox

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

Non-notable software. Refs are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I see at least one independent review in the references from arvixereview. But the article is outrageously promotional, with an extensive listing of minor routine features, and a detailed list of changes. I am also very suspicious about articles with a history section explaining why the inventor decided to create the product, based on an interview with him--this has become a very common promotional technique. But promotionalism of this sort is fixable, and I have fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - As the arvixereview site's disclaimer shows, they are paid to review products, and as such, should not be considered independent, nor should such a review contribute to establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listed award is only listed at the company's website, not where it's claimed to be awarded. Google shows only one review, which is more of a how-to, and several thousand "how to" articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to establish notability. With respect to Arvixreview, we look to coverage in independent reliable sources to etablish notability because they are exercising editorial control in the selection of their topics for coverage. In this case, there is no editorial control on the selection of the topics as they are being selected by having payments made. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails both WP:NWEB and WP:NSOFT. The non-primary sources are only available to verify awards and alexa rank, with both of these saying nothing about notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Czarkoff's rationales. This software is not yet notable enough by itself to carry an article here. Maybe in some years if the software reaches the notability levels needed. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 15 September 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.