Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-WAN (Web server)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
AfDs for this article:
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.

talk) 01:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

G-WAN (Web server)

G-WAN (Web server) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

largely promotional article on an unremarkable web server. Claims are referenced with primary sources, other wikipedia articles or blogs. Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. (hotly) contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked the "Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources" comment since the external link targeted here is for a "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" Laboratory Student involved in the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory". 1) I hardly can be accused of having any grip on the Academic world ("3rd Party"); 2) the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory" of one of the most respected universities in the world can hardly be qualified of NOT being a "reliable source". The reason for you to remove G-WAN this time was "addition with no article". Since the G-WAN article HAS BEEN WIPED-OUT by Wikipedia 'moderators' like the one making this remark, this is a vicious circle: they make their own luck to justify deletions. In the past, similar fallacious arguments were used, like removing all references and then claiming that no references were available, or claiming that G-WAN is not 'notable' while G-WAN is the fastest Web Server on BOTH Windows AND Linux (and by a large margin, see the article EXTERNAL links), and whether user-mode or kernel-mode servers are considered. It is also and by several orders of magnitude the smallest in size (server + C scripts = 200 KB that you must compare with Java, PHP or .Net). For the record, "notability" means "the quality that makes somebody or something worth paying attention to". You did not answer any of my arguments - proof that your goal is not to evaluate the value of this article. The fact that you go as far as to deny the EPFL existence *because* it is referenced on Wikipedia reveals how much you value fair talks (to check its existence, you could click on the wikipedia link to reach the EPFL website). Instead of discussing the merit of this article or of your deletion, instead of presenting arguments, you are threatening me of a permanent exclusion. This behavior is clearly NOT serving the Temple of Knowledge: why, on all the Web servers listed on Wikipedia, the only one that MUST be "deleted permanently" (to quote RadioFan) is G-WAN, the smallest, fastest and safest (no vulnerabilities ever, another notable difference) of all. This is a simple question - the only one I am asking.

Bugapi (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not seeing an external link to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, I'm seeing a reference to the
    References to reliable sources does. Also, please dont misquote, no one has said the article "MUST be deleted permanently". The article will be deleted if the consensus here is delete. Please focus on improving the article, not on other editors. --RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, how about "it is difficult to verify the claims set forth in the article with multiple non-self-published sources independent of the creator"? You appear to be getting caught up in semantics where the administrator (I am one too, for disclosure) who reviews this discussion would not have that problem. Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually read the G-WAN article? It does not seem so: Check the EXTERNAL LINKS that confirm the SPEED, SCALABILITY, SMALL FOOTPRINT, and LACK OF SECURITY HOLES (all unique characteristics in this segment). Basically, you are judging on this issue WITHOUT even considering the facts...Bugapi (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to correctly link to the article you've add to the list, a problem might not occur in the future. I'm sorry if the mark-up is confusing for you; you may want to ask for help in the future when you're not sure why something happened. Kuru (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've set the wheels in motion on
    Cherokee (Webserver). Got any more? Glad somebody pointed this out, because Caudium was in fact an ancient Italian city and should not have been squatted on by an article on back-office software in any case, so at least that's been fixed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Why stop there? The following servers *also* lack PR support: AOLserver, HFS, IBM HTTP Server, lighttpd, LiteSpeed Technologies Inc., Monkey (web server), NaviServer, Node.js, Null httpd, Oracle HTTP Server, publicfile, pronghorn (webserver), Roxen (web server), Oracle iPlanet Web Server, thttpd, TUX web server, TV's server, UltiDev Cassini Web Server, WEBrick, Yaws (web server), Zeus Web Server and Zope... so, if you are going to apply the rule, they should also be wiped-out.83.77.106.207 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerdis of Tlön, Why do you keep mentioning that the articles are about "back-office software"? Why should that make any difference one way or the other? --Hamitr (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"
widely read, non-local, outside the trade publications. Back office products need to have some showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. "Notability" means "outside the IT department". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I know what "back office" means, but I fail to see how "back office" software would have different notability requirements than "front office" software or any other type of software.
"Back office products need to have some showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance."
Is that WP policy or your opinion?
--Hamitr (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the
conflict of interest is raised. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It sure reads to me that your quote from
WP:CORP
:
"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
applies only to the notability of organizations, or else the sentence would include "notability of organizations and/or products." However, the "Primary criteria" section of the same page states:
"A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added)
This is pretty much a restatement of the "standard" WP:Notability policy, so I still don't see how "back office" or similar classifications have any bearing on notability.
--Hamitr (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom rationale pretty much sums it up. Should have been speedy'd. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article claims notability (but doesn't back it up with anything more than primary sources), while I agree that it should be speediable, not worth the lecture from an admin about tagging articles for deletion which make some claim of notability and dont read completely like spam cut and paste from a glossy brochure.--RadioFan (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the lecture anyway :) (for Strikeforce): A7 is explicitly not for software, G11 is iffy since the puffery can be cleaned up. The problem is all you're left with is sourced from the developer. In a contested situation, it's best to let it run through AFD and then you can use G4 in the future, presuming a delete result. Kuru (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm, good points. I hadn't thought it all the way through. Strikerforce (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per invitation from a rather excitable SPA. The existing references are self-published with the exception of a blog posting from a college student. If there's something more significant, I could not locate it; various forum postings and a slashdot run is all I could see. It may be helpful if energy spent screaming about censorship be directed at locating sources to use for the article that meet
    WP:RS. Kuru (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Keep: why delete G-WAN and keep the others that lack Press references: Abyss Web Server, AOLserver, Appweb, Caudium (web server), and Cherokee (Webserver), HFS, IBM HTTP Server, lighttpd, LiteSpeed Technologies Inc., Monkey (web server), NaviServer, Node.js, Null httpd, Oracle HTTP Server, publicfile, pronghorn (webserver), Roxen (web server), Oracle iPlanet Web Server, thttpd, TUX web server, TV's server, UltiDev Cassini Web Server, WEBrick, Yaws (web server), Zeus Web Server and Zope... if the rule of law governs wikipedia then it MUST be equally applied to ALL (especially those who, unlike G-WAN which is 24h old on wikipedia, enjoy years of this "unlawful" Squatting which makes it so urgent to delete G-WAN)Bugapi (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is a good place to start, as far as answering your question. But, the process is the same, regardless... if you feel those articles belong at AfD, it is most certainly your right as an editor to nominate them. Strikerforce (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Per this[1], it is recommended that you log in to contribute to this and any AfD discussion to ensure that your comment is given due regard. Strikerforce (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you (the wikipedia "trusted" Editors and Admins) keep violating the most important wikipedia rules daily, why should others bother to respect the most minor ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.158.222 (talk • contribs)
  • Could you help out your fellow editors and please remember to sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end? It helps others to know to whom they are responding.Strikerforce (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you mean, like when the "fellow editors" edited my posts or when the "fellow editors" removed my posts completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.158.222 (talk • contribs)
— 83.77.158.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Pretty serious accusation. Can you provide diffs to support it? Keep in mind, users are permitted to edit their own talk pages by removing posts as they see fit (with very few exceptions). Strikerforce (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please let me know how you can *demonstrate* that something has been edited/removed without having access to the same server logs (that can only be altered by the guilty if I am not mistaking)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.108.148 (talk • contribs)
— 83.77.108.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You can find instructions at
    MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
— 83.77.158.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • It's the same. This page has a history link at the top like any other. -
    MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • For the last time (replying here since IP hopping socks are IP hopping) - Redlinked articles in lists are usually removed as being non-notable. Regardless of that, they are not as useful to a reader as a real bluelinked article. Its very clear from my edits to that page that I was fixing your bad faith edits that were restoring the redlinks. I see that you managed to fumble your way through to get them all bluelinked yourself now, after undoing my edit. Last warning - stop with the bad faith claims. Syrthiss (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • anyone looking at your changes will see that you just deleted the whole entries - and did not replace redlinks by bluelinks. Lies have short legs.62.203.188.42 (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— 62.203.188.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It is quite clear by looking at the diffs that Syrthiss was fixing your errors and not removing anything from the list. Please acknowledge this and retract your
MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It is quite easy to restore his edits and see that they remove G-WAN from the "Comparison of Web Server Software". As you do not even question why I felt necessary to restore G-WAN, your comment is irrelevant.83.77.133.243 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 83.77.133.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strikerforce (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, I would suggest closure of this debate with a result of delete. The only "keep" commentary appears to be coming from the same individual(s) from a dynamic IP using the same argument repeatedly, while choosing to ignore constructive commentary from other users in regard to standing Wikipedia policies. By now, we have reached the point where the debate is continually running in circles with no new material being added. Strikerforce (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the (serious) questions (in bold) have been answered by a trio of "fellow editors" (who support each-other and make only clueless remarks). Anybody daring to complain is dismissed under fallacious arguments. It is amazing that nobody seems to care: what is at stake is the credibiity of Wikipedia.62.202.125.242 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 62.202.125.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The only "question" that has been posed was "PLEASE explain why a GENERALIZED practice (self-links and no appointed PR publication) is OK for 9/10 of the other servers (here since years) - and not for G-WAN (here since 12 hours". That question was answered - by me - here[2]. In that same edit, I suggested a course of action for you (allowing for the fact that all of these IP contributions appear to be originating from the same person or group of individuals with a single purpose) to you to take, if you feel that the other articles should not be on Wikipedia. To this point, you have not only chosen to utilize a dynamic IP to present the appearance of multiple editors participating in this discussion, but you have also chosen to ignore the suggestion to use a registered account to express those opinions. Please stop your disruptive editing, as it is extremely counterproductive. Strikerforce (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Always the same empty arguments: your "reply" (that's why you provided a link instead of the obviously pointless text) was: "it is [...] your right as an editor to nominate them [for deletion]" (in short: be a vandal, like us, the "fellow editors"). Regarding your accusations of using a dynamic IP address purposedly, sue my ISP for doing that on my behalf. And if I don't always login, that's because I don't see the point: what proves that the trio of "fellow editors" that attack G-WAN constantly are not one single person hidden behind three accounts (used to hide one single ISP)? So, instead of writing crappy arguments and adding more and more warnings on the top of the G-WAN article, start to raise the quality of Wikipedia: if G-WAN must be deleted after 3 HOURS of existence (because it lacks Press Articles), then the * 26 * other HTTP servers listed for YEARS (without Press Articles) should be deleted too (a corrupt judge is corrupt for NOT applyng the rules equally). But since this list probably includes the Web server that you want to protect from G-WAN's comparison then this option does not meet your approval. Glorious way to advance your agenda, really. Just like these INSULTING comments on G-WAN's forum, OBVIOUSLY POSTED BY YOU, the "fellow editors": http://forum.gwan.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/1436/#Comment_143662.203.173.195 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, go back and read what has transpired here. I provided a link because the response is there, plain as day, with no need to type it out again. Your original argument of "if this is not allowed to happen, then that should not be allowed to happen" has been acknowledged. It is, procedurally, invalid, as I have pointed out, but if you feel strongly about the argument, then it is your right as an editor to express that opinion by nominating the other articles for deletion, just as this one has been. At no point did I suggest otherwise, sir.
The burden of proof, in regard to notability, is not on me, in this situation. I am doing nothing more than routine maintenance work via my tagging. If you take a look at my edit history, you will see that that is an overwhelming part of what I choose to participate in here on Wikipedia. In no way, shape, or form am I - or any other editor that has tried to help you - targeting you or singling you out. The sooner that you can realize that, I believe, the sooner that you may be able to bring G-WAN up to appropriate status and make this whole discussion a moot point. I daresay that if you had committed as much time and effort to that task, to this point (given that the G-WAN article has been in existence now for approximately 78 hours), as you have in adding text to this discussion, you may have already accomplished something positive, rather than doing very little but running around in circles here.
In regard to your statement that essentially amounts to accusing me of having a
other stuff exists
isn't going to cut it.
Your statement (accusation, really) about "what proves that the trio of "fellow editors" that attack G-WAN constantly are not one single person hidden behind three accounts (used to hide one single ISP)?" is not only blatantly false, but could be proven so via a request for checkuser, if you truly believe that the editors that have contributed commentary that you disagree with are, in fact, one person using multiple accounts through one ISP. However, that is once again something that is entirely your right and your decision to pursue.
Finally, in regard to your link and corresponding accusation, I am sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not located in the city that you have identified, nor is that my email address. Strikerforce (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed by the length of your empty comment: I did not expect the guilty to confess his faults. But it has been ruled a criminal offense in the U.S. to post insults under the cover of an anonymous profile, so the "fellow editor" who did it should be banned from wikipedia. Strange that nobody among you guys seem to care about the black sheep "fellow editor".81.63.69.80 (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest reading
Wikipedia's policies against legal threats. Strikerforce (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


{{outdent}}

Comment I assume the trio of fellow editors mentioned above is in reference to the the request for comment on user conduct underway concerning Bugapi. For the record there are 7 editors involved in that process, not three.--RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sure that you can invite as many relatives as your long life on wikipedia allows this to take place. However, the number of (one-way) unfair comments against one single person does not do anything to leverage the poor quality of your arguments. Since day one, you have used every possible way to use the 'form' against the 'matter' and this new personal attack is the proof that you just can't stand on the face of a balanced debate.62.202.107.154 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to debate the policies themselves. You are very unlikely to change policy in this venue. On the other hand if you could work within the policy and provide us with, say, two newspaper articles about G-WAN, I would reverse my vote to a keep. I'm pretty sure everyone else involved in this discussion would as well. -
MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfair behavior and plain insults from "good-faith editors" are hardly about applying policies. How can we trust "fellow editors" who act like a gang of crooks? How can they be considered trustworthy?81.63.69.80 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have grown so sick of attempting to get you to realize why this article is up for deletion that this will more than likely be my final contribution to this discussion. My advice to you is, as it has been before, to find better sources for the article. Anything that originates from the publisher, TrustLeap, or from www.gwan.com is - by the boundaries set by
WP:RS - not acceptable for use within the article. If you would like to include those "sources" (for lack of a better word, at the moment) as external links, then that may be permissible. I have just completed yet another Google search for information about G-WAN and - through approximately 20 pages of results - have not been able to find sources of information that are not either directly published by TrustLeap or do not originate from (i.e., interviews with developers, spokespeople, etc) TrustLeap. If you can do a better job sourcing the article, I will gladly consider changing my opinion on the subject. That has been my position all along, sir. The issue that I have with the article is not necessarily the notability of the subject (although that is debatable), but the sourcing problem and your continued argument that "if X exists, then Y must also be allowed to exist". The article has now been live for almost 96 hours... that's nearly four full days. What have you done in that time to improve it? I can't see where you have done much other than come here under the protection of a dynamic IP and give the same argument over and over again. For that, you have nobody to blame but yourself, not other contributor's to this discussion. Good luck to you, sir. Strikerforce (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I have struck part of a comment above which appears to me to be either plainly preposterous or in violation of

talk) 06:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Incredible, when "fellow editors" violate the common law (in addition to wikipedia's rules) this is of NO INTEREST to other "fellow editors" (too busy breaking the rules themselves). I think that all is said: the only thing you do is acting as a gang, protecting each-other, to advance your agenda at the expense of others.81.62.199.178 (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just making things up as you go along. Whomever "DRose" happens to be, they did nothing wrong under any form of law on the G-WAN forum. Immature, perhaps, but not illegal. In regard to action on Wikipedia because of the posts that you linked us to, there is very little precedent - that I am aware of - for any sort of sanctions for off-Wikipedia actions like that, even if you could definitively prove the Wikipedia identity (if the individual even has a registered identity; they could be an IP contributor, the same as you are at this point) of "DRose". Please, stick to the facts of this discussion and working on making the article pass the various policy checks, rather than continuing to make attacks on other Wikipedia users. G-WAN has now been online almost five full days. If you care so much about the article, why have you done little (if anything) to save it? Strikerforce (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
StrikerForce, I do not have the power to force (or to pay) any media to publish an article about G-WAN. Nor, apparently, can the other 26 Web servers do it - but this is a problem only for G-WAN - thanks to your war against G-WAN.81.63.74.18 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My "war against G-WAN"? Well now, that kinda sorta makes my day. I didn't know that I, as an individual with but a modest income, could afford to wage "war". I learned something new today. That bit of humor aside, you are missing the point, once again. "If X, then Y" arguments and unfounded accusations against other editors are not the way to go at AfD. AfD, while it has no set time limit, tends to run approximately seven days when there are editors (or in this case, an editor) strongly contesting the deletion. I mentioned above that G-WAN has been online for about 120 hours. That means that you've got about 48 hours left before somebody may come through here and make a decision on closure, one way or the other. Why not cease your invalid arguments here and focus on improving the article? Or, did you just admit defeat by saying that you "do not have the power to force (or to pay) any media to publish an article about G-WAN"? Perhaps I am drawing conclusions, but that sounds like an admission of non-notability. Strikerforce (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I have struck commentary that may be considered in bad taste and/or inflammatory, upon second thought. It was genuinely intended as humor and to attempt to lighten up the situation a little, but given the stress that the IP contributor appears to be under during this discussion, the comment may not have been taken that away, so I offer my apology, in advance.[reply]
  • Comment Its worth noting that a RFC on user conduct is underway on Bugapi and the anon ip's being used here. Most editors involved in this discussion have been notified and many have participated in that discussion but all are welcome to contribute their thoughts there.--RadioFan (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: Are you sure? This all has now been proved to be a Make-up:
A Cherokee webserver Troll has been identified as (at least one of) the "fellow editor" working behind the scene to eradicate G-WAN[3], after an independent comparative benchmark largely turned in G-WAN's favor 85.2.10.158 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things to note about your comment, sir - 1)
reliable sources, so the second link that you have provided is, unfortunately, only marginally relevant to the discussion. Your article has now been online approximately 147 hours... and you continue to expend effort presenting wild conspiracy theories and circular arguments here, rather than improving the article. Strikerforce (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
meatpuppetry) is not allowed. I hasten to add that using these tactics equally won't sway the result of this discussion, as consensus is reached on the basis of adherence to the respective policies. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G-WAN_(Web_server)&oldid=1068874479"