Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barracuda Web Server


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Barracuda Web Server

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN article by SPA/COI author, WP:NOTPROMO. The three EE Times sources and the Embedded Computing sources are all basically press releases on the product. As a matter of fact, the third source is on the press release page of Real Time's website. Those are not acceptable to establish notability, and as press releases, they are indeed promotional in nature. In fact, almost all of them start with something about "Real Time Logic LLC has..." The last five articles from RTC Magazine and Embedded are all written by Wilfred Nilsen, an employee of Real Time Logic (the company that developed of the product), and are thus not independent sources.


 * I am also nominating the following article:

--MSJapan (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , as it is written with essentially the same sources/types of sources, by the same creator, and also bears an imageuploaded to Commons by the same user that is sourced to the company, which should pretty much prove the COI.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is backed with additional references that to the best of my knowledge are not associated with Wilfred Nilsen or employees of Real Time Logic. "EE|Times" Bernard Cole, "EE|Times" Ane Francois Pele, "RTC Magazine"" Tom Williams. Additionally, it is not uncommon for high technology that experts like Wilfred Nilsen contribute writings to share knowledge and insight within a particular subject matter of expertise. "Embedded" shares a statement about the type of contributions, articles, and content that they accept here: --Sorisen (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It was an over site that the permission was not included with the original file upload. The originating author Real Time Logic LLC, granted use under CC 4.0 at my request for use in my article on the Barracuda Application Server. The permission has been added to the file and is now corrected. Sorisen (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found two sources.  The first,  from iX, is in German and doesn't look to be very in-depth.  I could be wrong.  The second one,  from the EE Times, looks like a press release.  Besides that, I don't see anything in a Google search.  There were only 79 hits for, so I don't think I missed anything.  It's possible that there's offline coverage, but, honestly, I kind of doubt it.  Google is pretty good about indexing tech stuff, and tech magazines would be foolish not to at least put their headlines online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, this RTC article was written by the magazine's editor-in-chief. I missed that.  So I guess that one is good.  Still not sure we've got enough here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete both for all the reasons above. Additionally, it should be noted that in cases on software, we also look at how widely used the software is. Thus, if a software is used by a lot of people, it is likely notable and there would be sources about it. Over here, I decided to do a search and see if people are posting reviews/troubleshooting advice/tips on setting up the software. Unfortunately, the coverage in this aspect is sparse. This reinforces my decision that the subject is not popular and likely not notable as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the author has not clarified or disclosed their COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2016 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.