Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpleW
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (6 delete inc nominator, 3 keep, 1 merge). I have since merged and redirected this article to Tiny web servers as suggested in the merge vote. Thryduulf 22:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] SimpleW
Compleing vfd - no vote --Doc (?) 22:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Low Google results. Little notability. ArmadniGeneral 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- So what is the problem ? There are plenty of (commercial, not well-known) web servers in the category Web Servers. As this is free software, there is no commercial interest.... (Unsigned by User: 84.160.235.16
- One problem is that no-one apart from its own author has published anything on the subject of this product. Whereas for the likes of Apache, IIS, and thttpd there is a whole cottage industry of third party books, web sites, training courses, how-to guides, and so forth. I've written an HTTP server, which I give away at no charge. Just like the subject of this article, it has nothing written about it that doesn't have me as the source. That I have no commercial interest in it having an encyclopaedia article does not eliminate all problems for an encyclopaedia article about it.
"free software" does not equate to "no commercial interest", by the way. Witness Stronghold. That the subject of this article is free software does not mean that there is no commercial interest. Uncle G 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- One problem is that no-one apart from its own author has published anything on the subject of this product. Whereas for the likes of Apache, IIS, and thttpd there is a whole cottage industry of third party books, web sites, training courses, how-to guides, and so forth. I've written an HTTP server, which I give away at no charge. Just like the subject of this article, it has nothing written about it that doesn't have me as the source. That I have no commercial interest in it having an encyclopaedia article does not eliminate all problems for an encyclopaedia article about it.
-
- More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Somewhat useful, although not very well-known. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertisement for NN product. Whether the product is useful is irrelevant to whether anyone is actually using it or talking about it to a substantial degree. Postdlf 05:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Stevey7788. --Apyule 05:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously.
- Weak delete: The product is not significant. It has a place in a list of products, just as some guitarist deserves a mention in his band's article. Does it need a separate article? Only if it's particularly notable in some way (first, best, most-used, etc.). What tipped to delete for me was the "Download it" link. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org, and the article above that "download now" link looked like download.com's product description rather than an article. Advertising for a product that is not substantial, but I have no objections to its being mentioned in an article up the taxonomic tree. Geogre 13:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This just does not belong in an encyclopedia.Voice of All (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Shows no sign of notability, where as existence and utility are not sufficient criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's job isn't to go out and find little known products for users, and then write pages about them. That said, it would be fine as a (non-linked) mention in a list of web servers or something of the like. (unsigned comment by Icelight)
- I can locate no published work about the product that is independent of the product's own author xyrself. This product thus does not satisfy the criteria in WP:CORP. Delete. Uncle G 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Unless there is a lot more to this product than what is there right now, there is nothing encyclopedic about it. If there is, I'm breaking out all the programs I've written for personal use and posting them on here. Peyna 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Icelight. -- Kjkolb 10:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Tiny web servers. This was the concensus from a previous vote I took part in. Tiny web servers was created to reduce this cruft without throwing away the information and starting an edit war (there were tons of these).--Darkfred Talk to me 17:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
