Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Snorkel Embedded Web Server

I don't understand why this article has been nominated for deletion. It is simply restating factual information about an embedded web-server. There are already articles about the solution at other sites like Code Project. Here is one of them http://www.codeproject.com/KB/IP/netstatsrv.aspx
 * It doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. The fact that it is factual is not a factor (ho ho). Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a few sources does it measure up now. If not can you be more specific? I am new here.Wcapers (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain the difference between what I have posted and this article of a similar nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoose_(server).Wcapers (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever, so I'm AfDing that as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For further clarification; we require articles to pass WP:GNG, which this doesn't appear to. It isn't just about sources, it's about what those sources are. One of the ones you've given is the website of the server design, so it's not really third party as we require. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks for your clarity. Unfortunately,the software is too new for a third source. The only sources that I have are from Code Project in which the software is rated by users on a scale from 0-5. This might be a slippery slope that you are heading down.  There are many articles about valid software solutions that can be argued as failing with in this rigid criterion. Here are a few more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_HTTP_Server, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BadBlue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boa_(web_server), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devwex, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord_(web_server), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiawatha_webserver, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_File_Server and that's not the entire list.  Are you going to recommend these for deletion as well?Wcapers (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that you are also going to recommend the comparison of light weight web-servers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_servers) for deletion as well since it references these pages? Wcapers (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguably, when someone goes to Wikipedia and searches for embedded web servers, they should be able to not only get a definition of what an embedded web server is but where they can find them and who writes them. Your deletion of these limits Wikipedia's ability to provide this valuable information, making it an incomplete source for the topic or worst biasing it to solutions that have a longer history.Wcapers (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We bias it to things that have coverage from third-parties. The problem is that if we were to allow anything to be posted as long as it has a website (which is basically what you are saying) how would we remain neutral? If we were to accept the websites of these web servers as valid sources for notability and information-gathering concerns, we'd be opening ourselves up to including any amount of spam. Ironholds (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, however, the question should be more of legitimacy when it comes to articles about applications. Does the application really exist and does the application do what the article says it can. Is there related material or sources that support it?  In my case, wouldn't Code Project be a third party since the articles contain comments and rankings from impartial readers?  As an expert on the topic of embedded web servers, I can say to you that the other articles are legitimate descriptions of solutions that meet the definition of an embedded web server. They are not spam. Wcapers (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we require sources to be not just impartial but reliable. Journals, reliable websites, newspapers, that sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it. I still think that it is a disservice to users that search Wikipedia for answers and examples for the topic.  As far as articles about software is concerned, providing reliable sources is a tough if not impossible criterion to meet.  Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. Wcapers (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of software manages it, but I understand your point. The software which does the dirty, difficult, backend stuff may not get as much press as the swish pretty frontend with all its lovely features. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To anyone who may think Snorkel is run of the mill, think again. Recent benchmarks using ab.exe, a tool developed by Apache, show it to be the fastest free embedded web server available.  I will be posting my findings on my site within the next few weeks.  Anyone who thinks Snorkel is run of the mill should think again and clearly lacks expertise on the topic and should not speak about something they know absolutely nothing about.  I address this to the other gentlemen whom also elected to delete this article and posted a nasty comment on the project page.  Did he know that Snorkel is the only free embedded web server library to leverage NUMA and lock-free processing to take advantage of todays latest chip technologies. I know that it is, because I took the time to carefully review the other offerings.  Try looking up NUMA and locality on Wikipedia.  I refuse to accept insults from ignorant people on the stage of the world wide web.  Its one thing to recommend the deletion of an article and its another to bagger its author with a bunch of bull.  I think the second gentleman whom recommended the deletion of this article should be removed from the board since they clearly lack the communications skills of a professional.Wcapers (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted this article because users whom have currently started using the library, as it was presented on Code Project, felt that it belonged with the other embedded web-servers described on Wikipedia. I thought you guys were suppose to be impersonal.  I edited the comment posted on the Project Page and removed the "run in the mill" statement, it was inappropriate and a slap at my 30+ years of software development and research. Impartial means treating everyone the same, I did not see this guys smug comments on the other web-server articles...  How unscholarly.   ...Wcapers (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're neutral in article terms, yes; you didn't see that guy's comments on this article, either, you saw it in the AfD. He was actually using it to link to Run-of-the-mill; he does not mean to be offensive, he is simply indicating that from what he can see it's just another web server application. An application with cool new bits and bobs, yes, but it doesn't reinvent the concept. Ironholds (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its one thing to recommend that an article be deleted and another to throw in insults on the stage of the World Wide Web. Snorkel has been under development for over two years and was designed to out perform all existing embedded web servers. Its approach to short term - long term memory segregation and garbage collection also make it far above run in the mill.  As a award winning writer and scholar of computer science I will not stand by and take such uninformed insults.  Here is another one of my award winning articles (http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp_managed/threads/article.php/c14447/Creating-a-C-Thread-Class.htm) . I am not just some average run in the mill Joe.  This was like a movie critic rating a movie based on a preview.Wcapers (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)