Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpotlightPHP (software)

Procedural nom. Expired prod but sufficient objections on the talk page means AfD. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original prod reason. The last "objection" made on the talk page came from an IP on December 20, 2006, so I won't rate that as "sufficient." —Kurykh 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I had not checked the dates. Still, I think AfD is preferable. Pascal.Tesson 01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- KTC 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --PEAR (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the person who left the original PROD tag. Thank you for your interest in these articles, which were all listed in List of Content Management Systems. I am not a self-proclaimed deletionist, if some of the articles related to this list I have PRODed or nominated on AfD, are in fact notable, I would be only to happy to keep them with the correct references. When people have expressed concerns over half a year ago and the notability issue was not addressed, it is time to wonder if the problem is not simply that the software is not notable enough for wikipedia. To anyone who is voting keep, please, please provide the correct sources. Even just one person providing proof of notability can outweigh 100 people electing "delete". Jackaranga 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]