Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard PHP Library

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 keep. —Kurykh 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

phpcruft. wikipedia does not need a new article for every chapter of the php manual Misterdiscreet 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand - C standard library, C++ standard library, if you're going to include other popular libraries, this should be included as well. Google returns 41,000+ records for this, it's not like it's obscure or not in use. Joe User NY 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are 103,000+ records on Google for fgetc(stdin). let's create an article on that! there also is precedent for deleting phpcruft. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHP Data Objects, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BCMath Misterdiscreet 21:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful what you wish for, the consensus is that being a unix command is already a valid basis for an article, so individual C, C++, and C# functions will surely follow. Spazure 10:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparing a function to an entire library is not a valid comparison or argument and you should know that. I don't think it's phpcruft, I think it's a library on it's way to becoming a certified standard. Joe User NY 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This could be expanded into a good article and has no problem with WP:NN. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for volunteering! Misterdiscreet 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment This is a stub, it can be turned into a decent article. It doesn't necessarly have to be turned into one in the next few days, as Wikipedia does not have deadlines. Joe User NY 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This nom is Cruftcruft. Dhaluza 20:17, 22 July 2007 (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.