Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiServer


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiServer
Article with relatively little history, advertorial in tone, asserts that it is genericised but offers no evidence (and indeed has no secondary sources). 200 unique Googles excluding mirrors -wikipedia&start=200. Has been around for a while but I see no real evidence of significance per WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 11:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC) If one stays consistent, and being the first and oldest of a subgenre of wikisystems, and having 200 unique hits, is not enough, then roughly 40% of all wiki-systems mentionned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wiki_software should *certainly* be deleted too, since they have even far less to show for. Both actions; offering this article for deletion while leaving the others stand, as well as deleting all those wikisystems, would seem rather unreasonable. In my book, being the first of a genre (or subgenre) makes something already noteworthy.
 * True I was surprised to see an article on my program here :). Now I finally get to feel what its like to be nominated for deletion :). The earlier program by Eddie Edwards has a bit history in the C2 wiki and such for being the first real wiki built on an actual server... different times then though.......... RN 11:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment sourceforge project. W not a directory of sourceforge projects. See GIMP, a noteable project. User:Yy-bo 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Not clear about the 'has no secondary sources'; of those 200 unique google hits, at least 54 are mentionning it in the context of actual use. Within the niche of wikiservers (self-containing wiki-engines) it is the most known example. Furthermore, it was the first wiki of this concept to ever be built; that alone makes it already notable enough to be mentionned. I agree that the article could be improved, but this could be remedied by declaring it a stub, which can be made better (adding a more elaborate history and making it less advertorial in tone, for instance).


 * Yeah, here is another one . Anyway, I am staying out of this one - too involved RN 21:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per nom. -- Drahcir my talk  [[Image:Smile.png]] 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. The nominator supplied a reason to delete it, not to keep it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He probably meant RN...or he thought the arguments given by the nominator could be seen as sufficient for keeping it, even though the nominator voted to delete.
 * Delete per nom. No sign of significant independent reporting and low ghit count is relevant for software. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: First of a subgenre; genericised term of wikiserver (more then 23.000 hits for the genericised name; no mention of the term before 1997), review in the dutch IT-magazine 'netwerk': all this makes it elligible to be on wikipedia, according to WP:SOFTWARE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.228.203 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete per nom--Peta 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons already mentioned above; it would seem they are indeed valid according to WP:SOFTWARE. I suggest we make it into a stub, and let it improve. --APEC


 * This AfD appears to have been lost somehow. Relisted once more... Zetawoof(&zeta;) 16:18, 28 September 2006 (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.