My gripe here is: 1) You have told me there isn't enough reliable sources here. Fair enough.. 2) However, if you check EVERY OTHER web control panel page, Plesk is the only one to have a notable source. Why are you singling this article out? 3) cPanel, possibly the largest one was added in 2004, and STILL has no proper "peer reviewed" sources.
So either you mark them all for possible deletion (except for plesk), and risk losing information on all the web control panels from Wikipedia (and the comparison of web hosting panels which isn't completely referenced either, because its simply such a massive table) or you don't.
So should I mark them all for deletion?
References/citations have been added.. This article is actually more detailed then many other Control Panel articles now. And its removal will only mean that the comparison of control panels would be half-finished Auzy (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has been significantly cleaned up now, and I don't believe it should qualify for deletion any longer. In fact, it now goes into more detail then many of the other control panel listings on Wikipedia. This article is required to allow Comparison of web hosting control panels to be as complete as possible. Its also impossible to identify how many servers use Baifox, compared to other panels, as no real research has been done, so one cannot possibly claim that baifox is irrelevant software that will just disappear. Auzy (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of the standard of the article, if the subject matter does not meet the notability guidlines it may be deleted. To show how Baifox is notable, the article needs references to reliable third-party sources. It doesn't have nay at the moment and I can't find any on google. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)