Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhpLD

: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. It does not appear that there are any reliable sources at this point. Would be happy to userfy for someone to work on it until sources become available. J04n(talk page) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

=[[PhpLD]]=

:{{la|PhpLD}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PhpLD Stats])

:({{Find sources|PhpLD}})

Article about a web application with no indication of notability and a lack of secondary sources. Contested PROD. bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added more sources, and as I understand the requirements I certainly want to conform to your guidelines. I am not an expert with using Wikipedia but I am trying to learn how to edit and talk. dvduval —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Our software truly is on thousands of sites but it is not the sort of thing covered in the newspaper. We are regularly in the Alexa top 10000 sites on the net. If you have to delete it, you certainly know the policies better than I do, but if there is anything I can do, please let me know. -- dvduval (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Reply - I wouldn't expect something like phpLD to be covered in a general circulation newspaper, but a reliable source is any sort of publication which exercises editorial control in selection of topics to cover, and has a repuation for fact checking. If there is coverage in more specialised trade press, that can be used to establish notability. If the software has been covered in academic studies, that might be useful for establishing a case for inclusion. If there is coverage in special books, that would help advance the argument for inclusion. For example, if there is coverage in one the O'Reilly books, that would be considered a reliable source and count towards establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

: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.