Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enhydra Server Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enhydra_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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enhydra Server

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial independent coverage and no other evidence of notability to support keeping this article. Inniverse (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. This is a Java application server which incorporates a standard Apache Tomcat (or alternatively Jetty) servlet container. If you're not in the IT department you can be excused for not understanding that. References are to an announcement of the product, and to a press release. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to a Linux Journal print article (which was already on the talk page). The topic is also included in two books using the search above. Regarding the comment of Smerdis of Tlön immediately above ("If you're not in the IT department you can be excused for not understanding that."), this is only a justification for rewriting the article, not deleting it (IMO). I've read (or attempted to read!) many mathematics articles that would only be understood by readers with significant mathematics understanding. Does this justify deleting them? — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are at least two books and seven scholarly references to this topic found using the search above. Inniverse's (talk) assertion ("No substantial independent coverage and no other evidence of notability to support keeping this article.") is factually incorrect. — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Offhand references in publications do not substantial independent coverage make. News coverage is limited to the press release. If this becomes a serious technology in the future then there will be plenty of reliable sources to build on; in the meantime this article should go. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 01:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.