Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servers Alive


 * 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 one user put it vanispamcruftisement. More than happy to move this to someone's sandbox if asked per DGG. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Servers Alive

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable software. -Vaarsivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 20:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - unreferenced, created by an SPA as likely promotional/spam. Dialectric (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement that lacks multiple WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … I was going to put some lipstick on this pig (by replacing the explicit URLs with wikilinks), but it's not worth it. Happy Editing! &mdash;  17:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's vanispamcruftisement! XD Seriously, I love that word. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Uncertain but rewrite if kept.  Has anyone thought of actually looking for reviews? or is everyone here talking on the basis of appearances without concerning themselves with the actual guidelines?  There's a medium-length   3rd party review on   Techrepublic and a short one from pcmag. There's an interview at wispa, which looks reliable, but I'm unfamiliar with that source.   DGG' ( talk ) 02:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thank you, DGG, for looking for and finding sources.  Unfortunately, I don't think that they are enough to support an article.  So the result is still "delete", but there's a big difference between "delete because we have evaluated the sources and found them wanting" which is a good reason to delete and "delete because the article is sn unsourced puff-piece" which can often be solved by editing, no deletion required.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2011 (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.