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. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity PHP framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Framework is not notable as it has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. I was only able to find blog posts (not WP:RS) for the framework. The article also fails to indicate its importance, but because of the previous AfD/mistaken prod, I think I should try AfD instead of CSD. Odie5533 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Ouch, big blunder on my part, one of previous refs was a false hit. I remove the keep !vote because no GNG seems to help me, but I still see no point in deleting the article. There is no harm made to WP reputation or enciclopedicity by keeping it, and it is verifiable. Better having it than deleting it, in my opinion.--Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Keep - coverage can be found, e.g. [1], [2]. What's wrong with PHP frameworks on WP these days? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real bare minimum for inclusion is can a full article be written from the reliable sources available? If the answer to this is no, then we run into a real problem. That this framework is not capable of having a full article based on reliable sources does not mean it has no place within Wikipedia. Perhaps it has enough to be included in a List of frameworks page, or something similar. But given the reliable sources found on the subject thus far, full coverage of this framework is not possible. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 26 October 2009 (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.