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. ff m 17:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRADO[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I cannot find reliable, third-party source to establish notability for this web app framework, and the threshold is usually low, given that publishers (like Packt) love to rush books on web stuff to the market. VG ☎ 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, PRADO is a well-known framework established in 2004. It has been cited in numerous places if you google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiangxue (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Qiangxue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Over 10000 hits in Google, but I don't know they are reliable sources or no. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Article at present serves only to promote some entity and is unencylopedic. Despite a number of hits there doesn't seem to be a sufficient amount of reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant and non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as spam, as per Jasynnash2. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep or delete every PHP framework, PRADO is a well-known and popular PHP framework and it has over 10000 hits in Google, there are no reasons to delete it while keeping other PHP frameworks. So keep it or delete every PHP framework. Ekerazha (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some PHP frameworks are more notable than others. E.g. CakePHP has a book written about it [1]. VG ☎ 23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a book more notable than 10000 hits on the web? I don't think so. And most of the PHP frameworks on Wikipedia don't have books about them. Ekerazha (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the book means the subject covered in the book is a lot closer to meeting the policies and guidelines for inclusion. Simply having a bunch of hits is does not establish notability. 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In reply to your question: on Wikipedia, yes. See: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. Also, for entertainment purposes only, CakePHP has millions of ghits, so the number of books about a software products seems to (massively) correlate with ghits anyway. WRT, to your second point, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and feel free to nominate them for deletion. I've come here from another PHP framework that was nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yii_Framework. VG ☎ 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course 700.000 hits are more notable than 70.000 hits, but 70.000 hits are more notable than 7 hits. Nobody said the limit for notability was "100.000" hits or "1 million hits" (for entertainment purposes only, CakePHP doesn't have millions of hits on Google). 70.000 hits (with articles, comparatives etc.) seem like a good level of notability to me, but this is what we are discussing about. About the "second point", take for example KohanaPHP (but there are many others); I'll propose them for deletion ASAP. Ekerazha (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional spam. In addition, there is no evidence of coverage by independent media to support WP:N. A reminder to one of the prior posters: WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid argument for either deleting or keeping an article. B.Wind (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2008 (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.