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

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment I'm not seeing an external link to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, I'm seeing a reference to the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Wikipedia page. There is a reference that is labeled as being from a Ph.D. student at the Distributed Information Systems Laboratory of EPFL, however this reference is to a wordpress blog which is a self published source which raises reliability concerns. Is there something more concrete such as a press release or some other page on the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology website that covers this software in detail, if so that would a good reference to include here. a reference to another wikipedia page is not. Looking over the history, I'm not seeing any evidence of references being removed, thats a pretty serious claim to make. I dont think anyone denies the existence of this software or ÉPFL, but existence of this software or any institution involved in it doesn't help establish notability here, 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)

• Delete - No Google news hits that I saw, either from the find sources or my own permutations of g-wan (g wan, g-wan, G-WAN server, etc). Some google hits, but I'm unsure about the ones I looked at as being reliable...and didn't see much to support the notability other than being 'the fastest web server', based on the blog posting. To answer the article creator's question - it probably not the only one that should be deleted, but WP:OTHERSTUFF existing on wikipedia doesn't meant that they too shouldn't also be deleted. Syrthiss (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• "notability: the quality that makes somebody or something WORTH PAYING ATTENTION to". You mis-represent the meaning of "notability" by restricting it to "the numbers of links on Google" (or any other media). G-WAN is notable because of its qualities, not because appointed media are publishing about it.Bugapi (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Delete, strongly, and would suggest speedy deletion. Yet another back office software package. "References" to internal sites claiming that "Ours is Faster and More Secure!" suggest only that this is blatantly promotional and ought to be speedily deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established by sources. Bugapi, please note that on wikipedia Notability is a bit of jargon. We don't mean the definition that you can find in a dictionary, we mean the one in the guideline on notability. In a nutshell, that guideline says that an article topic is considered 'notable' when it has been written about by independent, reliable sources. In this case that would probably mean newspapers or IT trade magazines. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• @Bugapi - Yep. External links that all seem to be self published to the hosting site, a blog (self published) by the PhD student, and the discussion forum hosted on the hosting site. However, none of this seems to be coming across to you so I'm going to leave this discussion now. The reviewing admin has my comments. Syrthiss (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• @Syrthiss, @Smerdis of Tlön and @MrOllie - 9/10 of all the other Web servers (here for years) published *only* their own links (Abyss, AppWeb, Caudium, Cherokee, etc.) so please tell us all why only G-WAN should be wiped-out THE DAY of its publication.Bugapi (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  If there are other articles that don't comply with policy, that means that we should consider them for deletion as well, not that we should allow more articles that do not meet the guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  @MrOllie - that will leave MICROSOFT IIS and IBM Apache (would then wikipedia remain and "encyclopedia"?). Besides, you did not answer the question.Bugapi (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  I believe I did, but I will elaborate: Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is a lot to do, and something has to be first. Today we are discussing G-WAN, perhaps tomorrow we will discuss Cherokee. Since we are discussing G-WAN: Do you have any references to third party sources with editorial oversight, such as a newspaper or a trade magazine? - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  @MrOllie - you did not answer the question: 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), while G-WAN also provides 3rd-party links that you simply choose to ignore (About.com, Secunia.com, an independent benchmark, etc.).Bugapi (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  I have now answered your question twice. I am sorry that you are unwilling or unable to understand, but I will not be answering a third time. Since you have not provided any citations to third party sources with editorial oversight, I will assume that none exist. - MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  @MrOllie - typical: answering without addressing the question, while your buddy Kuru was erasing G-WAN from wikipedia's "Comparison of Web server Software". Wasn't Kuru supposed to wait for the decision before deleting G-WAN?Bugapi (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Comment. I've set the wheels in motion on Abyss Web Server, Appweb, Caudium (web server), and 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)

• Comment I have removed the PROD templates from several of these articles and suggested that they, too, go through AfD. Otherwise, I see a huge can of worms being opened up. Strikerforce (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

"Back office" means "part of the infrastructure that the general public does not see or deal with." As such it's unlikely to be noticed in 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)

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)

As the notability guideline on corporations and products says, "(w)hen 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." "Historical, technical, or cultural importance" is just shorthand for all that. This is why "back office" is relevant. More importantly, as Jimmy Wales put it when he started the concept of notability, notability means long term historical notability. Articles on products should demonstrate enough impact on history, technology, or culture to show that they have some kind of long term historical significance. This becomes especially important when the prospect of conflict of interest is raised. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Delete nom rationale pretty much sums it up. Should have been speedy'd. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Mmmmm, good points. I hadn't thought it all the way through. Strikerforce (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

*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)

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)

• Keep: When the NORM is transgression, the question is WHY all others can trangress the rules during YEARS while G-WAN is only allowed to do it for 3 HOURS.81.63.122.9 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 Help:Diff. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, I was referring to changes/deletes in posts like *this* text (not in wikipedia articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.183.121 (talk • contribs)

— 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)

• Keep: Just see how FAIR the "fellow editors" ABOVE are, acting in so-called "good faith" (using false titles) to eradicate G-WAN http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_web_server_software&action=history81.62.158.63 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• — 81.62.158.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strikerforce (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

— 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 personal attacks. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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) Strikerforce (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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 conflict of interest, that is not assuming good faith, nor is it accurate. I have no connection whatsoever to any form of computer software (have you read my user page?), as far as advancing one or limiting the publicity of another. My interest here lies in creating an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure, which is essentially what the article we are discussing amounts to... as do many of the articles that you have mentioned in your argument. I have neither the time nor the "dog in the fight" to search through the roughly 3.59M articles currently in existence on the English Wikipedia to go on a witch hunt. I don't imagine that you do, either, but you have identified - in your own words - *26* other articles that you feel don't belong here and I commend you for that. You have been given instruction on how to bring those articles to the same level of scrutiny as G-WAN (Web server). I would suggest that you either take the instructions and begin the process on those articles or commit yourself to finding a better rationale for saving this article, because 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)

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)

{{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)

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)

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)

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)