Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAMP

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 keep. Sourcing concerns and merge disputes do not belong at AfD. Closing without prejudice against individual relistings, as long as they respect WP:BEFORE. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAMP

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

Co-nom with:

These articles are unsourced (or sourced only to a commercial variant of no established notability in the case of MAMP) and warrant very little more than a sentence or two in a "variants" section of LAMP (software bundle), the parent article for the vastly better-known term. Keeping these forked just splits effort across four pages where the optimal approach would be one higher-quality work. Merge was undone without comment by Neustradamus (talk · contribs). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed
- Keep WAMP Notable, as the Microsoft world's contrast to the better-known LAMP.
- ~~Delete~~Merge SAMP (Sun Web Stack) & MAMP though - these aren't sufficiently common enough, WP:N enough, or different enough to LAMP to justify them as separate articles. MAMP is no different to any other generic-Unix-AMP these days.
- Keep & improve List of AMP packages This is a poor article that's not much better than a simple list, and that's of little more value than a simple web search. However the topic is important: we need an article that gives overall coverage of AMP-hosting with just this scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about FAMP? Is there a BAMP too? It's the FreeBSD equivalent for LAMP, but on a different non-Linux unix. I've actually used "FAMP", but never called it that - we always referred to it as LAMP just the same, even though we knew the difference. As a term rather than a concept, it seems to have little or no currency. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Practically none of the derivative terms have any real currency; even the term "AMP" as a derivative of "LAMP" is uncommon. This is amply demonstrated by the complete lack of reliable sources for almost all of these terms. There is little value in having a list page which will still never be adequately sourced. That applies just as strongly for "WAMP", which aside from the odd technical reference in textbooks has no real-world currency or reliable secondary sourcing to demonstrate why it is notable in and of itself and not simply as an occasionally-used derivative of LAMP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep goods articles and you can look on a search engine like Google that is known — Neustradamus (✉) 20:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for cleanup. It seems like we've been down this road before with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of WAMPs.
Looking at the edit histories of the above three articles as well as LAMP (software bundle), what I see is the nom boldly redirecting these articles to LAMP (software bundle) (not an actual merge per WP:Merge) and Neustradamus reverting those redirects. These of course are the first two steps of WP:BRD. Instead of initiating the 3rd step (discuss) the nom seems to have instead chosen to nominate these articles for deletion.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAMP, Comparison of WAMPs, LAMP (software bundle), List of AMP packages pages are good, after you can merge others (SAMP (Sun Web Stack) and MAMP) I think. WAMP and LAMP are known. — Neustradamus (✉) 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following WAMP, SAMP (Sun Web Stack), MAMP, FAMP, BAMP (some of these are not nominated because they already are redirects). Redirect List of AMP packages to LAMP (solution stack). Miami33139 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tothwolf. AFD is not cleanup and cleanup is possible (and so is merging without an AFD). The nominator should have started a discussion instead of an AFD. So Why 11:50, 14 October 2009 (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.