Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koozali SME Server
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Koozali SME Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Press releases and a couple of minor reviews are not enough to establish notability. Per WP:NSOFT: "the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable" and the reviews that do exist are not significant, nor do they do anything but repeat the release notes. The reviews are minor, go into absolutely no detail or perform an actual review, merely parrot a press-release from the distro itself, Furthermore, an entry on DistroWatch is not an indicator of notability, as DistroWatch is 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Aoidh (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)- 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.
- 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)
- 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/devinfo@lists.e-smith.org/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 Berry_Linux, ClearOS I see a lot of similarity in term of external sources used. tuxmachines.org is also based on user input as distrowatch.com which is part of sources WP:UBO. They are also using self blog post in more popular distro article like AlmaLinux for 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)
- 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 WP:ABOUTSELF links are fine for describing the subject, but are absolutely useless for showing notability about the subject, which is the issue at hand here. This is a review, but per WP:NSOFT, merely having a review does not suggest notability. As for DistroWatch, it is 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)
- 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. 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)
- 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 WP:ABOUTSELF links are fine for describing the subject, but are absolutely useless for showing notability about the subject, which is the issue at hand here. This is a review, but per WP:NSOFT, merely having a review does not suggest notability. As for DistroWatch, it is 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)
- 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)