Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POJO Application 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. Wizardman 02:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POJO Application Server[edit]

original research, not notable, unreliable sources, advertorial according to 41.240.146.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who didn't complete the AfD process. I'm neutral at this point. Eastmain (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion:

Not notable and advertorial: Author is the same as the person in the referenced material (see contacts page via Harbor link from main article). Can't even link to the contact page directly here, because the 100free.com URL is blacklisted. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

But it doesnt link to 100free, it links to KewlStuff, so I cant understand the problem of using 100free as a mirror site. It provides better trans atlantic communications? Will the problem go away if I give the product to Apache, will a domain name make everyone happy? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)

The domain isn't the problem, the problem is you're trying to use wikipedia to punt your own product. It would only be notable if
your platform gained general industry acceptance. And then, usually someone else will write about it, not yourself. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

Original research: On the discussion page, author confirms this (the Edison analogy).(previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)
Unreliable references: "POJO NUT" is hardly a reliable source. Note post number 9 on referenced page, where it appears that the author posts under multiple identities. "POJO NUT" and John are probably even the same person judging by the referenced article's content and the writing style.(previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

As I said, its a new technology, thats what makes it notable. Does this mean that only large companies can invent things, would you put the next Sun standard that is just released through a notibility test, if not why not? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)

New technology, hence does not belong in an encyclopaedia (see User:Uncle_G/On_notability). Forgetting for the moment that the
technical merits of the article are arguably questionable too - that's another issue. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

Merge with POJO I don't think there is sufficient material here to warrant a whole article. Merging with POJO may be a better option. (previous unsigned comment added by User:StephenBuxton)

It is clearly an Application Server, how does that fit under the definition of POJO? And it seems POJO is been set up for a deleteion process as well, so why there? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)

Trying to fake notability?

Save POJO Application Server Definition by trying to incite mailing list members to link to his site as references... Dubious. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment The above entries had got rather confused with regards to who said what, so I have assigned signatures to each of the comments. Please do not add any comments above this point, but below here, and please also remember to add four tilde signs (~~~~) after your comments. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No reliable sources cited, and none to be found as far as I can tell. Klausness (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (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.