Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinIO


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

MinIO

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Failed WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. The article is primarily written based on GitHub's readme description and MinIO's documentation page. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 16:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep Citations added. Flurrious (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep It seems notable to me, but perhaps I'm too close to the technical niche MinIO targets. The coverage given to it by TechCrunch, Forbes, Blocks & Files, Diamanti, and The Register (all cited in the article -- maybe Flurrious just added those?) seem like significant coverage in some depth to me. I'm going to nab a copy of the article in case you decide to delete it, but I hope you decide to keep it. TTK (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete . Source by source (of the ones not clearly non-independent), the TechCrunch piece is an interview with one of the founders of the company (and therefore not independent), the Forbes article is written by a non-staff 'contributor' and therefore not considered reliable per WP:FORBESCON, the Diamanti piece is essentially just a how-to article that happens to use MinIO (and so not significant coverage), and The Register only mentions MinIO in passing as an example of open-source object storage (and so not significant coverage). The Blocks and Files article looks OK to me, but we need more than one source to meet WP:NCORP. Tollens (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tollens for the feedback on sources. Added another reference from Computer Weekly. Flurrious (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't see that one when I did my search. Looks good to me – since there are two sources appearing to meet WP:SIRS, changing to keep. Tollens (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. More than enough coverage to support notability. Owen&times; &#9742;  09:42, 8 November 2023 (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.