Talk:PhpPgAdmin

Unclear

"The project originally started as a fork of phpMyAdmin, but is now a completely different code base and provides comparable services to users of PostgreSQL's primary competitor MySQL." I'm not clear what this means -- what's being described changes in the middle of the sentence, suggesting that PhpPgAdmin provides services to MySQL. SabreWolfy (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation was not a violation? DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE

So apparently USER:Cbs527 has flagged this page for deletion and moved some text he claimed was copyrighted to talk. Quote: "Article doesn't seem to establish notability and lacks independent reliable sources. Article had a large amount of copyrighted material which has been moved to talk page. Article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NOT applies."

1. Since the article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NOT, I suggest we try to improve it to make it pass these. 2. I cannot fathom how THE PROJECT PAGE OF PHPPGADMIN IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT, RELIABLE SOURCE, can someone PLEASE explain to me why it isnt? 3. The alleged "copyrighted" text that was moved is licensed under a CC SA 3.0 License, as it says ON THE PHPPGADMIN PROJECT PAGE; Quote: "Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license:CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" (from footer of http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/doku.php?id=about) In addition, there are several other pages that link to or refer phppgadmin, deleting this page would rot all of those links and references, just like they were a while ago when this page was previously deleted.

The phppgadmin project has been alive since 2002 and not having a wikipedia page about it is a disgrace to wikipedia.

SirNickey (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is that it fails to establish the notability of the subject and meet the minimum standards. See WP:GNG and WP:NOT for more details.

1.Since the article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NOT, I suggest we try to improve it to make it pass these. Improving the article is the preferred option if possible. Anyone is welcome to do that whether they are a registered user or not. In December, 2016 the article was listed as a "Proposed Deletion" where anyone could have objected to the deletion and it wouldn't have been deleted, yet no one objected nor was the article improved to address the issues. Prior to nominating the article for an Article for Deletion discussion I tried to address the notability issues but was unable to do so. Perhaps someone will be able to.

2. I cannot fathom how THE PROJECT PAGE OF PHPPGADMIN IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT, RELIABLE SOURCE, can someone PLEASE explain to me why it isnt? It is not an independent source : "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." To establish notability, a subject should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject such as newspapers, magazines, books, journals or other medias.

3. You are correct, the "About" page of the http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/ site does have a Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license. If re-added with quotation marks under History section following the first sentence, it should be okay. The addition of this text does not effect whether the article should be deleted or not.

If the consensus is for the article to be deleted, the pages that link to the article will be red linked and the red links will be removed. Lastly, the length of time an article exists is immaterial as to whether it should be in the encyclopedia. If you feel it is a "disgrace" if this article isn't include, then be Bold and improve the article so it meets the minimum standards for inclusion. Regards, CBS527^Talk 03:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added a new sentence about cross-platform compatibility with what I believe are two secondary sources (archwiki and techtarget). I hope this will pass the "relies too much on references to primary sources." note. Will look into how to fulfill the article with "Significant coverage" but I'll need more time for that. SirNickey (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)