Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ph7 engine

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. Sandstein 08:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ph7 engine

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

I placed a prod tag on this article with a request for independent sourcing, and it was removed with an addition to a project profile on Freecode.com, a site which appears to be an indiscriminate collection of user submitted open source projects. I've looked and cannot find any sources for this, so I believe this project fails the general notability guideline and the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The project is Open Source since October 2012, so it's a relatively new project and I'm one if the commiter to it. As I said, the source code is available free to download, simply analyze it and you will see that PH7 really is an Embeddable PHP Engine, you may also check the PH7 Licensing page (http://ph7.symisc.net/licensing.html) or the company website (http://symisc.net). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremejames183 (talk • contribs)

I have no doubt that it exists and really is an embeddable php engine, I just doubt that it meets Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is self-advertising, you are wrong. I'm a simple commiter to the project, not a direct affiliate with it. If such behavior was wanted, I would have copy and paste all the features page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremejames183 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. In fact, I'm not even seeing coverage in unreliable sources. That isn't surprising for a project that only got started last month. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 5 November 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.