Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-WAN


 * 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 - as has been noted below, article's claims of notability and not supported by reliable sources. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

G-WAN
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Previously deleted following a discussion. The current version is a substantial improvement IMO and includes an independent reference showing notability. Previous spam elements have been removed.

The article was nominated for speedy as it was a re-creation of an article deleted following a discussion. I declined the speedy on the basis that the article had improved significantly. However, I am nominating it again for discussion given that it had only recently been discussed (March 16).

Suggest: Keep. Delete and salt RA  (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest taking it to WP: DELREV instead of here. AfD exists to delete articles, not explain why they should be kept. I would make a speedy keep close (because you, the nominator, have failed to advance an argument for deletion), but I don't know how and people would yell at me for closing a discussion too early. C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not totally familiar with all the deletion protocols but it sounded to me like WP: DELREV was the more appropriate option too given the previous deletion. In any case, I would favor deletion because the fact there's an About.com vignette written by a guy who downloaded it does not seem like any improvement over the original deletion discussion.  To give an idea of how unheard of this is outside of this guy/company's own promotion, yesterday when I was looking into this I did site searches on both Computerworld and Infoworld and got zero hits for both "g-wan" and "trustleap" as well as getting nothing substantial in the first few pages of a general Google search.  I am an internet software developer and I have never heard of this web server.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel there's a bit of confusion here. True, G-WAN doesn't have a lion share of web server market, but :

1. You get quite a bit of hits typing "g-wan" in Google, like: (a) tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/29/.../g-wan-another-free-web-server (b) cplus.about.com/b/.../g-wan-superfast-webserver-for-c-scripting.htm (c) nbonvin.wordpress.com/tag/gwan/ .. etc, etc..

2. You get a lot of hits and discussions regarding this web server on StackOverflow.com/ServerFault.com -

and some of the authors really like the "C-scripts" features. The server existed since 2007, and there are actually production sites using it.

3. "Trustleap" is not the right term to search for - it's just the name of the legal entity in Switzerland, as I understand, not a product name.

4. Some of very large CDN's in the US - like Limelight - actually use G-WAN for certain very intensive tasks like Edge Queries/Beaconing.

5. Anyway, I am trying to make a point that G-WAN is not some very un-noticeable piece of software which has no value. It existed for over 5 years, and there are quite a few people who used it and liked it, not "just "downloaded it".

I respect the previous editor point of view, but would still like to see a reasonable consensus. It seems a lot more natural thing to do than just blindly deleting it. The current G-WAN entry has really nothing "promotional" in it other than asking to have an entry for something which has been developed for over 5 years, and actually shows some very good results compared to traditionally-architected servers. Novel approaches should be noted, not ignored - that would be a more positive take on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.253.33 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — 75.144.253.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep We use G-WAN for Comet applications, and I would say, speed-wise, it's a even faster than lighttpd. True, the C-interface is a bit unusual for web development these days, but if you're a strong C/C++ programmer - you'll have fun playing with G-WAN. — 108.71.88.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Pretty much the same as the last AFD. The only sources here are to blogs, unreliable sources such as about.com, and salem-news.com, which is not a newspaper - it describes itself as a 'exclusively Web news organization'. These are not the multiple reliable sources required by the General notability guideline - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2376846/which-key-value-store-is-the-most-promising-stable StackOverflow clearly shows how valuable it can be for NoSQL applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.56.1 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep This article about G-WAN should have been on Wiki many years ago. And I am surprised people take a one-sided view of what G-WAN is. It's not really a web server like nginx - this is not the point of inclusion or exclusion. It's an ecosystem of modules around a multi-core kernel, like one of the fastest NoSQL solutions you can get:
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting because the "keep" opinions by the IPs are unhelpful; they do not address our inclusion criteria per WP:GNG etc. Can we have opinions by people familiar with our standards, please?  Sandstein   06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but improve the article. G-WAN is a well-known piece of Internet technology with likely hundreds of reputable sources discussing it.  It'd probably be easier to just go Google it than to discuss deletion.  Omnibus (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You say that there are "likely" hundreds of valid sources, but could you just link to one? The product's development team who is/are posting to the article's talk page can't seem to come up with much more than blog posts and forum discussions, nor did my Googling or targeted searching of IT industry trade magazines before this weird deletion nomination requesting that the article be kept was made.  If the product's developers are having trouble getting industry publications that already cover fairly obscure web servers to cover their product, Wikipedia isn't the place to start. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In just a cursory glance at the article, more than one has already been linked for you. Surely, if you are interested in a technology article like this you have heard of Netcraft, StackOverflow, and About.com?  I would hope so.  Here, it was covered on About.com and notability is not temporary as per Wikipedia guidelines so "once is enough".  Omnibus (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I will say that I was surely wrong about the hundreds of notable sources. It's certainly becoming a hot topic on web tech forums for having relatively little mainstream coverage. None of this is particularly relevant of course, since just one GWAN-specific About.com article makes it notable enough for inclusion given the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG Omnibus (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, web forum mentions or a guy at a content farm having downloaded it once do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". (Like, seriously?  About.com?  A site whose current headline is "Your Perfect Prom Look"?)  Netcraft coverage would be a single substantial source but where is the link you're talking about?  I am getting zero hits in the Netcraft.com site search and a Google search of that domain. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete; all the listed references are random one-off 'we benchmarked this' or blog posts by random people on the internet. The salem-news.com link is sort of notability-establishing, but it reads basically like a press release. Veinor (talk to me) 06:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article probably needs to focus on G-WAN being a tool rather than a "narrow-defined web server". Looks like a great low latency solution for Trading and Scientific apps. Here's the discussion: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7683793/what-is-the-principle-of-low-latency-in-trading-application


 * The preceding unsigned comment was made by User:Sfmist (contribs), the creator of the current G-WAN article, who in the talk page identified themselves by signing a message with "Kind regards, G-wan team". --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First, Stack Overflow is a web forum, and so is not considered a reliable source. Postings there do not build the case for notability. Secondly, the author(s) of G-wan have been sanctioned in the past for advertising at Stack Overflow, (He posted to complain about it here) so we must consider any postings there that reference G-wan to be highly suspect. - 75.130.105.1 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4752 - Looks like a very cool server. Here's a LinuxJournal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.56.1 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)  {{
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: 69.164.56.1 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
 * Are you referring to the spam in the comments section?
 * I'm getting the feeling there's little or no reliable sources out there on this. I've stuck me suggestion to keep. -- RA (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Google search for "g-wan web server": 2,440,000 results. Also, the About.com notability - a site which existed since 1995, and has 50 million unique visitors in March-2012 (behind Wikipedia.org with 88 mln) - could not be categorically dismissed: About.com. But, arguably, some of above-cited references may lack an objective and impartial view of the matter. Suggestion: distill the article and some references, tone down the discussion, and keep a revised version. Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)  — Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Google search results for:
 * "a-wan web server": About 8,030,000 results (0.29 seconds)
 * "b-wan web server": About 5,600,000 results (0.21 seconds)
 * "c-wan web server": About 4,010,000 results (0.28 seconds)
 * "d-wan web server": About 3,410,000 results (0.29 seconds)
 * "e-wan web server": About 2,770,000 results (0.25 seconds)
 * "f-wan web server": About 2,430,000 results (0.27 seconds)
 * ... etc.
 * Apart from the About.com reference are there any independent sources for this software? It doesn't look like it. Also, I am losing faith at the number of single-purpose accounts casting keep !votes here. -- RA (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Ok, this is just a search query glitch, but "g-wan web server" (literal string) yields - 121,000 results. Including a number of Software Magazines published in France. Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All of which, incredibly, seem to be self-published sources or web-spam. "...a number of Software Magazines published in France" Link please? -- RA (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sfmist account has added a link to the article: http://www.programmez.com/actualites.php?id_actu=7925 which does go to the site of what would probably be a reliable source, but the page doesn't appear to be a magazine article and seems to be a bullet list of marketing points rather than anything technical. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are at least 2 links: (1) Decouvrez-le-serveur-Web-G-WAN, (2) Web-Ultra-Rapide Salisburylawn —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC).
 * And also in Ubuntu Programming Reference (under 'Interpreters'): help.ubuntu.com/community/Programming: G-WAN: Fast C Interpreter. (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Salisburylawn
 * The programmez links state that they are reprinting information from the vendor, the ubuntu link is to a page on their community wiki, which anyone may edit. In fact, we can see here] that an account belonging to the developer of G-wan added that link to the ubuntu page. These are not reliable sources, so they don't build the case for notability. That these are the best sources available is disheartening. - MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the About.com reference, these are terrible sources. Indeed, I'm getting a bad taste of WP:SPAM about all of these "references" and the way they are being pushed — not only here but on the referenced sites themselves. And, I really dislike the idea of Wikipedia being abused in the same way that these community forums (StackOverflow, Ubuntu Community Help, etc.) seem to be. In particular, as someone who in his daily work relies on and contributes to the good will of those communities.
 * Notability is not something that can — or should — be achieved through persistent spam across open web communities. Delete and salt. -- RA (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion may be (probably will be) re-visited in the future I want to reiterate that I am amazed that anyone regards About.com to be a relevant source in this discussion. Even if you consider that section separate from the overall "Your Perfect Prom Look" and content farm nature of the site, cplus.about.com is just some guy's blog, not a journalistic or academic editorially-reviewed or peer-reviewed publication.  He even has a page entitled "Other Blogs You might find Interesting".  If we were going to consider blogs significant coverage - which they aren't - the one from the university professor would be a better and more authoritative source. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think About.com isn't quite "just a blog" as you say, as only actual experts or semi-experts in whatever field are chosen to be editors and they are paid editorial staff instead of hobby bloggers. However, based on the fact that I can't find any mention of G-WAN at Netcraft when it was referenced here by our friend and I too thought I had seen it there; and mainly because I have a feeling that our friend is voting for himself under different pseudonyms... I'm striking my "Keep" vote for now.  I consider About.com to be about half a notable source, not quite getting this one up to par yet. Omnibus (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly the entire About.com site isn't a blog, only the linked-to cplus.about.com is what is referring to itself as a blog, and I could go along with calling the overall site a content farm generated by semi-experts with no editorial process. I found the Netcraft link eventually: it was added here by the Sfmist account and was a link to uptime.netcraft.net displaying how long the domain gwan.ch has been up in amongst the readings for a list of other domains. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. If that type of Netcraft "reference" were accepted, nearly every site on the Internet would be included in Wikipedia. I had thought I'd seen it mentioned in the web server roundup along with a myriad of minor players behind Apache and Nginx and lighttpd/Litespeed/Cherokee/etc., but there's no sign of that type of reference at Netcraft yet. Omnibus (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2012 (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.