Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koozali SME Server

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 no consensus. Regrettably, there's very little substantive argument on either side of this debate. Nobody besides Aoidh has examined in detail the sources provided. Longevity, and the existence of primary sources, do not contribute toward notability; but conversely, promotional content isn't in and of itself a reason for deletion unless a page is promotional in its entirety (and therefore eligible for

WP:CSD#G11), and primary sources are permitted to be used once notability has been demonstrated via secondary sources. On the balance the "delete" arguments are marginally stronger, but the margin isn't large enough for consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Koozali SME Server

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article fails

user-submitted content and for those that don't want to be put on the submission waitlist, anyone with $220 can buy an instant listing on DistroWatch, there is no other criteria. Aoidh (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Aoidh (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I just edited the article to have more encyclopedic and referenced content. Regards. Gieres2 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC) — Gieres2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I've been monitoring the article, and there's been a lot of forum posts and routine acquisition of parent entities and such, but nothing that provides significant coverage for the article's subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, outside of the aforementioned routine reviews. - Aoidh (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,

First thank you for you time reviewing wiki article and sharing your wisdom.

I understand your concern about some forum post being part of the sources. However, I sincerely think there are sufficient external "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", even if it is not only this kind of source in order to be able to cover sufficiently the subject. For the exercise, I took the time to categorize all the citation currently in the article:

Here are trusted and independant sources:

- https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=ENT&masterFileId=20051244165&entityId2=20051244165&fileId=20051244165&srchTyp=ENTITY Colorado State registration

- https://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.do_name_srch?p_name=koozali&p_regist_nbr=&p_srch=PHASE1&p_entity_status=ACTINA Oregon state registration

- https://alter.com/trademarks/sme-server-77129033 trademark registration of logo 2008-2014

- https://lwn.net/Articles/61202/ article contributed by Ladislav Bodnar

- https://www.linux.com/news/lycoris-acquires-mitel-sme-server-spin/ Linux.com on Lycoris 2004

- https://www.osnews.com/story/10854/mandriva-acquires-lycoris/ osnews on Lycoris and Mandriva 2005

Here are some independants sources:

- https://archive.org/details/sim_americas-network_2001-09-01_105_13/page/n91/mode/2up?q=%22e-smith%22+mitel America's Network 2001 (not a review)

- https://archive.org/details/manualzilla-id-7007093/page/n1/mode/2up?q=%22e-smith%22+server Mitel Documentation

- https://archive.org/details/postnukecontentm0000hatc/page/16/mode/2up?q=%22sme+server%22 Postnuke project documentation citing SME Server as good server to run Postnuke on 2005

- https://archive.org/details/manualzilla-id-7384540/page/n17/mode/2up?q=%22sme+server%22 Medical Practice Network Security Firewall tutorial 2005

Here are the review you mentions, still independant sources.

- https://archive.org/details/DigitAugust2001/page/143/mode/2up?q=%22e-smith%22+server Digit Magazine 2001

- https://www.theregister.com/Print/2010/11/17/review_sme_server/ The Register 2010 (appears 2 times need to fix it)

- https://archive.org/details/LinuxVoice/Linux-Voice-Issue-018/page/n59/mode/2up?q=%22Sme+server%22 Linux Voice - Short review of Netheserver mentionning the Fork 2014

- https://archive.org/details/apc-2005_04/page/n107/mode/2up?q=%22Sme+server%22 Australian Personal Computer 2005

here are some less independant from the subject but giving important detail in term of history or technical details

- https://static.lwn.net/1999/0506/a/e-smith.html e-smith founder announcing the public release

- https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg12336.html email from Dan York, Director of Product Management, Mobility Solutions Mitel Networks Corporation

- https://www.clearos.com/clearfoundation/social/community-dashboard/entry/shad-lords-joins-the-clearfoundation-team Announcement ClearOS blog annoucement from Michael Proper from ClearOS 2010

- http://smerp.free.fr/ SME fork

- http://web.archive.org/web/20060706204953/http://free-eos.adullact.net/Manuels/ManuelServeur1.3/whatsnew.html SME fork

here are the "lot of forum post" you mention

- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php?topic=37294.0 forum post on Ruffdogs and Hollonyx 2007

- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,27362.msg115669.html#msg11566 forum post on donation 2005

- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php?topic=39713.0 forum post on community elections 2008

- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,46850.msg230522.html#msg230522 forum post on donatiosn 2010

- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,49983.0.html server migration 2013

- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,51237.0.html server migration 2014

- https://forums.koozali.org/index.php/topic,49846.0.html Koozali Foundation announcement 2013

here are some
WP:ABOUTSELF
non independant sources:

- http://distro.ibiblio.org/smeserver/contribs/rmcnew/SME_Community_Constitution/rtf/ Ruffdogs and SME Server community policies 2005

- https://wiki.koozali.org/SME_Server:Constitution_2008

- https://www.pr.com/press-release/43464 press release from the Koozali Board

- https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Koozali+Foundation%2C+Home+of+the+SME+Server%2C+to+Share+a+Portion+of...-a0335881674 (duplicate of previous will merge them)

To note that where the forum posts are used, I think they enter in the use case for
WP:ABOUTSELF
, and hence are ok to use in the context about an article about itself.

Also from comparing the other side distro in the current Fedora Linux derivatives category, like
WP:ABOUTSELF
.

While I understand your initial concerned about distrowatch offering quick advertising for money, this is an option they offer for the NEW distro wanting early marketing, and are pending review for inclusion in the listing (https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=submit). Read there, they have a review process to include new Distro for listing and SME Server is there since 2002-01-31 (20 years). They are still a ressource in the Linux world for informations like release dates.

I would be please to improve more the article but concerns on specific parts would really be more helpfull than a simple "nothing that provides significant coverage for the article's subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, outside of the aforementioned routine reviews" when what I see 14 /33 are independant sources (only 4 are reviews) in the list and other are
WP:ABOUTSELF
.

Regards. Gieres2 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a lot of links. However there's not a single thing in that list that shows notability for the subject in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Things like trademark filings and user manuals are not independent sources. Mentions about routine business acquisitions and trivial mentions in magazines are trivial coverage. Despite how you described them, this, this, and this are not reviews of the subject and are absolutely trivial coverage in that they mention the subject only in passing. Your
user-generated content and not a reliable source in any way. At the link you provided it explicitly says "There are a few situations where we might not list a new distribution, but those are rare." Essentially a distro has to exist to be listed, that's it. There's a waiting list to make sure it's not one of the few exceptions like an embedded distro, but other than that if you exist you're in as far as DistroWatch, so having an entry there means absolutely nothing as far as showing notability, as it's not notable that something is listed there. The fact that nothing provides notability is the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello, I've browsed over the links provided and while some are indeed dubious as reliable sources, the review from The Register certainly fit the significance and reliable source criteria. It is a proper review, provided criticism and insights and certainly does not repeat any press releases. I also stumbled upon this 2019 comparison of small business servers in which SME is described. If Berry Linux did indeed pass the notability test, I think there are more sources listed here than is enough for SME to deserve a spot on Wikipedia. This distro has existed for 20 years, is still running on thousands of servers and is being actively developed and supported. Tinss (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Tinss. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to relist this again, but I'd like to see comments after recent improvements to the article. Also, if you could also boil your comments down to a bolded "Keep" or "Delete" it would reduce the amount of deciphering your intent which is required in some of the longer remarks. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

@Gieres2 Could you please let us know about the type of the organization. Here it says [1] It is a private company but in subject site it claims as NPO [2]. It is contradicting. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tinss (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your comment above, a review or two is not enough to meet
WP:OSE. The mere number of sources in an article is also not an indication of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree with Aoidh's arguments. In addition, I'm siding delete because of the promotional nature of the article. SWinxy (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poor quality sourcing, highly promotional and reliant on
WP:PRIMARY sources >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:21, 27 July 2022 (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/Koozali_SME_Server&oldid=1101155464"