Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistserver

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistserver

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

Delete because it fails Notability (product). Lack of secondary sources. Not much effort to provide independent reliable secondary sources after notice of notability issues in October 2012. Not offense to Olivier Noel, but Notes and comments on new technologies world by Olivier Noel just doesn't make it. --Bejnar (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I had added that Olivier Noel reference to the article on first reviewing the AfD last night, but that is all I had found and I agree it is insufficient to establish notability for this product at this time. AllyD (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NSOFT gives open source software a somewhat freer hand at meeting NOTEability, can you be more specific why you think Olivier fails in this case? Is he somehow related to the company in question? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is just that it is a single review of brand-new software. I have not investigated the reliability of his site, but it is self-published. Where does server software usually get reviewed? --Bejnar (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another case of something that could very well become notable some day if it lasts long enough to get enough independent attention. One idea would be to userify until a referenced article can be done. Right now two of the four "references" are really Wikipedia links. Alas, User BobDijs seems to be single-purpose with only a burst of edits in October and November 2012 creating this article and links to it. W Nowicki (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (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.