Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhpPgAdmin

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 redirect to PostgreSQL#Database administration. Feel free to merge as appropriate. czar 20:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhpPgAdmin

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

Article re-created after being deleted by expired WP:PROD on 23 December 2016. Article doesn't seem to establish notability and lacks independent reliable sources. Article had a large amount of ~~copyrighted~~ material which has been moved to talk page. Article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NOT applies. CBS527^Talk 17:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The source of the copied text does have an Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license. The copied text was not attributed correctly. CBS527^Talk 04:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a Redirect to PostgreSQL#Database administration as suggested by Mark viking. CBS527^Talk 15:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CBS527^Talk 04:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose deletion under any circumstances; it looks like there is sufficient content and notability for a standalone article, but failing that it should be merged and redirected, which can be discussed at the talk page. AfD is not the right venue for this. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent additions have improved the article but haven't addressed the issues with WP:NOT and notability. The article lacks reliable, independent secondary and third party sources. Currently, of the 7 sources listed 4 are primary sources from the product's web site, one is a download page from an open source site (SourceForge) submitted by a project administrator of the product, one is from a wiki-documentation site and one is from an article submitted by a project administrator of the product and contains a 1 sentence mention of the product. Your recent RfU was a good idea but I couldn't find any help in the previous history to address these issues. CBS527^Talk 02:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cbs527, you ignored the part of my opinion about merging and redirecting (that I just emphasized for greater visibility). Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect, as suggested below, is also okay. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising in which it's only a listing so WP:NOT always applies. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - undoubtedly a notable topic but you'd never know that from this list of features sourced only from primary sources. WP:BLOWITUP. Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to PostgreSQL#Database administration as suggested below by Mark viking. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Nobody demonstrated how this meets WP:NSOFT yet. Nobody suggested a valid merge target yet. In which case... delete as soft-spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC) PS. Modified my vote as redirect is fine, thanks User:Cabayi for the ping and User:Mark viking for the idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PostgreSQL#Database administration where it is already mentioned. I don't see enough reliable sourcing for notability, but there is verifiability of basic facts, enough for a mention at the target article. 5-20 page views a day suggests that this is a plausible search term. Per our Wikipedia policy for alternatives to deletion WP:ATD, preservation of verifiable material is preferable to deletion. Hence, redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge. Merge should be done to a condensed version similar to other "Admins" listed there. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2017 (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.