Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Streaming 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Storm Streaming Server

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable software. Newly released, sourced to press releases, the companies own blog an interview with the developers and a vague reference to a newly published book. Google searches not finding much coverage.. noq (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. This is textbook; if sources are found, or emerge in the future, an article can be written then. {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 19:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It's WP:TOOSOON. I couldn't find additional sources and the majority of the page sources are press releases or blogs. That leaves one reliable source (the book) and some may argue the Spider Web's web coverage is a second. Regardless, this fails WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it I guess I get to defend my first-ever article on Wikipedia. I'm not very familiar with the whole deletion process, so pardon me if I'm doing something against the rules, but I would like to present my arguments here as well. While this is true that most sources relate to blog/post, these are primary sources for the History section. This is quite common for software articles. The application received coverage in one of Poland's most popular online tech blog (Spider's Web). I understand that some people might argue this is 100% objective, although it is not a sponsored article (such are also posted on mentioned site and marked accordingly). The book is the second source. It might not be a significant number of sources, but they are present. I might be wrong, but all those mentioned guidelines like WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG do not provide precise requirements regarding the number of sources, time-frame etc. Once again - since I'm a new user and I lack experience, if there is anything I can do to improve the article (reach required number of sources etc) I would more than happy to do it. Nebuchadrezzar (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This is exactly the place to make your arguments for keeping the article and you are welcome to contribute. The article itself however does not appear to meet the guidelines on notability. There is specific guidance for notability of software at WP:NSOFT and more generally at WP:GNG. Most of the references given in the article are not considered WP:reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. Specifically, the companies own website cannot do that, interviews with the developers do not do that nor do press releases. That leaves only the book. How much does the book discuss this software? And how does it do it? noq (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per above nom and above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉</b> 00:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.