- 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. SpinningSpark 12:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Web-Developer Server Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A WAMP package, combining preexisting software into a single distribution. No third party sources, so this does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I looked for additional sourcing but only found a few non-RS blogs, though the search was made a bit difficult by the generic name of this software package.
I am also nominating the very similar article on the commercial edition of this distribution:
- Wamp-Developer Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(half of this is in regards to Wamp-Developer Server)
Please clarify your position, or suggest specific improvements, instead of general statements and tags.
I have listed why Wamp-Developer Server is notable on it's page, in the Notability Section, with references to 3rd party sources.
In addition -
1. You can see the website going back to 2003 on the Internet Archive - WayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php), making this WAMP one of the original 2 or 3 WAMPs (with XAMPP and easyPHP). If this is a problem - most WAMPS Comparison_of_WAMPs listed wouldn't stand up to this.
2. "combining prexisting software into a single distribution" ... this is wrong. Wamp-Developer uses it's own C# and .NET coded application and managerial framework, which sits on top of the web-server components. It's a 200,000+ line application. Not only does it provide original software, but it also manages the WAMP components completly different than from other WAMPs such as Xampp... Allowing switching between Apache, PHP, and MYSQL with 1-click and no new installs.
3. "No third party sources" ... I have listed 3rd party sources for multiple statements of fact. Can you clarify what you are looking for? You can search the internet or StackOverflow and ServerFault for mentions of "WampDeveloper" or "Wamp-Developer". There are MANY results. Also "Web Developer Server Suite" (the previous incarnation/name).
4. The page Wamp-Developer Server was created because MrOllie and previously Ronz reduced the Comparison_of_WAMPs page of all links to entries without a Wikipedia page. These were entries of WAMPs with, in some cases, 100s of thousands of active users. Wikipedia guidelines here -
http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists
... clearly state that Lists do not have to contain notable entries as long as the list (as a group of entries) is notable itself and it's not "large" (10 entries is not large, I removed 10 dead WAMPs from that list a long time ago myself, but never active projects). This produces a problem such as this. Even a catch 22 in some cases.
Also...
5. Wamp-Developer Server was published days ago, is being actively changed to fit wikipdia guidelines, and has maintained the "New page" tag from inception. This type of speedy deletion submission is concidered by wikipedia guidlines to be in bad-faith, as far as I can tell.
Vorlion (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Vorlion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The 'references to 3rd party sources' you added all discuss XAMPP. None of them mention Wamp-Developer_Server at all. We need reliable independent sources about this topic, not about other software packages. Stackoverflow and Serverfault are web forums (They do not meet the sourcing guidelines) and do not build the case for notability. For the benefit of other participants in this discussion, I'll mention that Vorlion has [self identified] himself as the publisher of this package. - MrOllie (talk)
- MrOllie
- The mentioned references are to back up the statements of fact on the page. I'm still not 100% sure what you are looking for... General mentions of the product name? Also, there are 4 other points above. Regarding your last statement, for the benefit of other participants in this discussion, I'd like to point out that I've never stated otherwise. I've been working with WAMPs for the last 10 years. I've also looked at your history, and while you do offer a good service in removing spam, at the same time you've listed an enormous amount of notable content up for deletion. Vorlion (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am looking for the article to meet the requirements specified in the General notability guideline, which I linked in my nomination. I think you should read it, it will answer your questions. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read that. It is a "general" guide and does not lend itself to WAMP distributions well... I have also linked to a similar page for you in my original point #4. See the link-pages here Comparison_of_WAMPs for notability "standards" for WAMPs or please be more specific. Your link also states you should add and revise, instead of delete (last-resort)). Vorlion (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a 'general' guide because everything should meet it. Your link to the stand alone lists guideline doesn't apply here, we are talking about the independent article you created, not a list entry. I tried to add and revise, but I could not find the required sources. As the package's author, you would be in an ideal position to provide sources, should they exist. It would be very helpful if you would do so. If you (or someone else) do not provide such sources, the article will very likely be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MrOllie "I tried to add and revise but I could not find the required sources" Can you clarify with a specific example of the needed source/reference, and to what part of the content it needs to be applied to? It's convenient that 1) your summery states that this will be your last comment here and 2) your history (removed of spam cleaning and reverting) shows no real additions to anything, all I see is red for the last 4 years that you've been here. Vorlion (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Vorlion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have looked at your history, and you are trying to delete pages in the web-development area (forum software, php frameworks, etc) that are not only notable in every point of the guidelines, but are in the top lists of their category; while at the same time, leaving lesser notable pages in place.
You're history (removed of spam cleaning and reverting) shows no real additions to anything since your first day.
You've also been intentionally general in your responses.
I don't think I or You should discuss this further as we both know there would be no point... And leave this to whoever makes the final decision. Hopefuly, it's not you! (I have no idea how the deletion process goes).
I would ASK you for 1 thing though, as outlined in my previous point #4…
Wikipedia guidelines here -
http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists
... clearly state that Lists do not have to contain notable (or wiki-paged) entries as long as the list (as a group of entries) is notable itself.
If these pages do get removed, I'd like to add the active non-wikipedia-paged WAMPs back to Comparison of WAMPs. Or better yet, for you to do that (as you culled the list).Vorlion (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. Google News and News archives turn up nothing when searching for "web.developer server suite"; Google Books only retrieves books with content copied from Wikipedia; Google Scholar has three articles mentioning something called "web developer server suite", but it's unclear if this is it, and regardless of whatever it is, it isn't in any of the abstracts, leading one to believe that it is not discussed in any depth. If the data on Web.Developer Server Suite currently listed in Comparison of WAMPs can be sourced somehow, then it can remain there, although I'm not sure if the title is worth redirecting. CtP (t • c) 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Per searches similar to these, Wamp-Developer Pro (the subject of the apparently mis-titled Wamp-Developer Server) does not seem notable either. CtP (t • c) 22:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CtP International Journal of Advancements in Technology, Vol 3, No 1 (2012) - http://www.ijict.org/index.php/ijoat/article/view/open-source-software/pdf_30 - "Web-Developer Server Suite" is listed as being one of the major (can read as - notable) projects in the web-related-area... Right next to Xampp. That's one more citation I'll add to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorlion (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's a good starting point. But I still feel that the suite lacks the "significant coverage" required to meet the GNG. Inclusion in a list doesn't necessarily mean it's notable (things are similar on Wikipedia—things which aren't considered "notable" can still be included on lists). With regards to your dissatisfaction with the GNG as a tool to assess notability for Web.Developer Server Suite, the only other guideline which might be applicable is Wikipedia:Notability (software) (although it's not really a "guideline" at all, just an essay). The criteria for inclusion are quite similar to the GNG, though. CtP (t • c) 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'International Journal of Advancements in Technology' article includes a list of OSS projects at the end. According to the reference in that article, the list was copied from Wikipedia's List of free and open-source software packages. - MrOllie (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't even realized that. It ought to be disregarded completely, then. CtP (t • c) 11:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability; not even close to enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that this product is notable. An attempt to include Notability as an in-article sub-heading to answer talk-page / AFD criticism is a pretty good indication that the product struggles to establish notability against WP:GNG. Though it's a user essay, WP:NSOFT gives a pretty good idea of what the WP community would expect to see to establish notability in this particular case. Also agree with the above - the bludgeoning and personal attacks are uncalled for. Try to keep it civilised. Stalwart111 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only citation is one that's using content taken from Wikipedia. No indication that the software is notable, as demonstrated by the lack of significant coverage in sources.--xanchester (t) 06:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (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.