Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MultiTail


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

MultiTail

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not be notable. Only a few mentions in news, and it appears that those mentions may have been paid advertising. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  23:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:MANUAL. I could only find very passing mentions of this product; not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. Otherwise no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently this is a useful tool. I find instructions for installing it in several books. All short mentions.  Nothing significant.  I didn't find coverage needed for notability. Gab4gab (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to Tail (Unix), where it is mentioned. The book Practical Linux Security Cookbook has three pages devoted to MultiTail. There is an in-depth article on the utility at Linux Magazine and a shorter article at ServerWatch. I think these are enough to establish marginal notability per WP:GNG. Even if notability is disputed, however, the sources definitely form a basis for verifiability of basic facts about the software in independent RS. Wikipedia policy dictates that outright deletion is uncalled for when there are alternatives to deletion available. One such alternative is a redirect to Tail (Unix), where it is already mentioned. --Mark viking (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fairly long articles briefly mention some items of interest for wikipedia content. Most of the coverage is on to how to install and use the utility. I'm liking the redirect idea. Gab4gab (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above analysis. not important as per wiki standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as clear advertising overall. SwisterTwister   talk  06:41, 2 February 2017 (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.