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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHDL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Minor code that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. While there's a bunch of hits for PHDL, almost none of them is related to the subject. When I typed PHDL "Brigham Young" came back with a few google hits, mostly forums and non independent sources. CSD declined though the page is obvious promotion for a person to get to use the code. Prod removed by article creator, and added another unreliable source (a slide presentation) Delete Secret ^account 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I declined CSD because the topic appears to have some coverage in Google Scholar, depending on what the 'P' means:
  Philips Hardware Description Language[1]
  Python Hardware Design Framework[2]
  Granted, the coverage is sparse. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's coverage of a different piece of software. According to their site, it's actually Printed circuit board Hardware Description Language. A412 (Talk * C) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I'd say delete it if the article can't be brought up to WP:GNG standards within a week. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hello, I am the original author of the PHDL article but I am not an experienced Wikipedia contributor, mostly a user that corrects mistakes from time to time. I've communicated with some friends in the Open Source community and a lot of them hesitate to contribute to Wikipedia because of similar problems. There are few Google hits on PHDL because it is open source and free. No company is writing articles and generating churn about PHDL because they cannot make money from it. It is written by electronics designers for electronics designers. Personally, I am not a PHDL developer. I am a user, an early adopter and beta tester. Quite a lot of work has gone into the development of PHDL and a little work into this Wikipedia article. If you can see your way to leave the article it will be very useful when trying to explain what it is. Thanks for your consideration and best wishes. Padudle (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We understand that, but it's very difficult for an article on a new tool open source or not is very difficult to meet WP:GNG in the first few months, thus the reason they get deleted all the time on Wikipedia unfortunately. Like I said in the talk page, you can move the article to your userpage and try to boost sources to meet the criteria when they arrive sooner or later. Thanks Secret ^account 17:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The project needs to be evaluated by secondary sources.

First, every development project does not deserve a WP article. There needs to be some indication of significance or acceptance. Even the article does not provide such evidence. There are motherhood and apple pie claims such as maximize productivity and design reuse. Those are non-trivial issues, but there is no indication how they are achieved. How is productivity maximized? Low cost schematic editors already have hierarchy / macro expansion. SCALD had recursive expansion in the 1970s. What level of design reuse is contemplated? Technology substitutions? Through-hole/surface mount? 5V/3.3V? Module generation? Design reuse has its own collection of propagation nightmares. How are the ECO alternatives handled? How about back annotation? Many design systems (even low cost ones) have error checking abilities, but many designers (and even library parts) don't use those abilities. What error checking is done? Secondary sources are needed to show that this project has either significance or acceptance.

Second, there are unfounded and dubious implications. Only text files can have version control? VC is important; the particular form of VC may not matter. Why the limitation to just PC board industry? Why different tools for similar problems? PCB layout issues involve a lot more than just circuit topology; how is that addressed?

Third, the examples seem logic-centric; are analog designers going to give up schematics? Writing RTL instead of a logic schematic is one thing, but the schematic for a switching supply is something else.

Glrx (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. No independent sources cited. Not exactly spam, but essentially written to publicise the software. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2012 (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.