Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver)

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 no consensus. This has dragged on long enough. I don't think any of the offered sources amount to much more than incidental mentions, but the only other delete !vote really doesn't add to this either. So I'm calling it off. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (Webserver)[edit]

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

Non-notable back-office software; contested proposed deletion. Google News searches find nothing that looks like significant coverage in reliable sources.[1][2], only incidental mentions. Books[3] and Scholar[4] are equally unavailing, although Scholar locates a Spanish white paper on the software that was apparently prepared for a Linux user group in Andalusia[5]. This user group article is apparently by the software's author, and as such not independent, whether this may be a reliable source or not. The current article is referenced only to internal sites. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

weak keep Appears to meet notability guidelines, if barely. While I'm not finding coverage of this topic where it is the focus of the coverage, I am finding mentions in linux administration books (Fedora 11 Administration and Search Engine Optimization for Dummies). --RadioFan (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I saw those books hits; I didn't think they were worth mentioning, because both of them simply list the name as part of a list of also-ran web servers; these listings were way too shallow to look significant. If anything, the books confirm that this is a minor league player. Search Engine Optimization for Dummies lists this among "a bunch of little guys". (And at Wikipedia, "search engine optimization" is another word for Satan and his imps.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I agree with RadioFan, and I also found mention of it in this book. --Hamitr (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reason why the "fellow editors" have added Cherokee is to justity a cover-up: A Cherokee webserver Troll has been identified as (at least one of) the "fellow editor" working behind the scene to eradicate G-WAN, after an independent comparative benchmark largely turned in G-WAN's favor. PLEASE HELP TO MAKE THIS (CHEROKEE WEBSERVER TROLL) EDITORIAL WAR AGAINST G-WAN CEASE.— Bugapi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment for closer: above user has been blocked for vandalism and 3RR issues, as well as sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. —Tom Morris (talk)
- Additional comment for closer: above user has a conflict of interest.--RadioFan (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I started the process on this article after it was called to my attention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-WAN (Web server) as another unreferenced article about a web server. I did want to make it clear to User:Bugapi that his article was not being singled out for different treatment, and that any unreferenced article about a non-notable subject is potentially subject to deletion. (And FWIW, all of the book mentions pointed out above would appear to be canonical examples of "incidental coverage", and I don't think they make a case for notability.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have moved the page to Cherokee (webserver). OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I've heard of this webserver before, however the independent reliable sourcing is exceedingly weak. Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 2011 (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.