Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-WAN

G-WAN

G-WAN (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)

Previously deleted following a discussion. The current version is a substantial improvement IMO and includes an independent reference showing notability. Previous spam elements have been removed.

The article was nominated for speedy as it was a re-creation of an article deleted following a discussion. I declined the speedy on the basis that the article had improved significantly. However, I am nominating it again for discussion given that it had only recently been discussed (March 16).

Suggest: Keep. RA (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest taking it to WP: DELREV instead of here. AfD exists to delete articles, not explain why they should be kept. I would make a speedy keep close (because you, the nominator, have failed to advance an argument for deletion), but I don't know how and people would yell at me for closing a discussion too early. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not totally familiar with all the deletion protocols but it sounded to me like WP: DELREV was the more appropriate option too given the previous deletion. In any case, I would favor deletion because the fact there's an About.com vignette written by a guy who downloaded it does not seem like any improvement over the original deletion discussion. To give an idea of how unheard of this is outside of this guy/company's own promotion, yesterday when I was looking into this I did site searches on both Computerworld and Infoworld and got zero hits for both "g-wan" and "trustleap" as well as getting nothing substantial in the first few pages of a general Google search. I am an internet software developer and I have never heard of this web server. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I feel there's a bit of confusion here. True, G-WAN doesn't have a lion share of web server market, but :

1. You get quite a bit of hits typing "g-wan" in Google, like: (a) tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/29/.../g-wan-another-free-web-server (b) cplus.about.com/b/.../g-wan-superfast-webserver-for-c-scripting.htm (c) nbonvin.wordpress.com/tag/gwan/ .. etc, etc..

2. You get a lot of hits and discussions regarding this web server on StackOverflow.com/ServerFault.com - and some of the authors really like the "C-scripts" features. The server existed since 2007, and there are actually production sites using it.

3. "Trustleap" is not the right term to search for - it's just the name of the legal entity in Switzerland, as I understand, not a product name.

4. Some of very large CDN's in the US - like Limelight - actually use G-WAN for certain very intensive tasks like Edge Queries/Beaconing.

5. Anyway, I am trying to make a point that G-WAN is not some very un-noticeable piece of software which has no value. It existed for over 5 years, and there are quite a few people who used it and liked it, not "just "downloaded it".

I respect the previous editor point of view, but would still like to see a reasonable consensus. It seems a lot more natural thing to do than just blindly deleting it. The current G-WAN entry has really nothing "promotional" in it other than asking to have an entry for something which has been developed for over 5 years, and actually shows some very good results compared to traditionally-architected servers. Novel approaches should be noted, not ignored - that would be a more positive take on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.253.33 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — 75.144.253.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep We use G-WAN for Comet applications, and I would say, speed-wise, it's a even faster than lighttpd. True, the C-interface is a bit unusual for web development these days, but if you're a strong C/C++ programmer - you'll have fun playing with G-WAN. — 108.71.88.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Pretty much the same as the last AFD. The only sources here are to blogs, unreliable sources such as about.com, and salem-news.com, which is not a newspaper - it describes itself as a 'exclusively Web news organization'. These are not the multiple reliable sources required by the General notability guideline - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This article about G-WAN should have been on Wiki many years ago. And I am surprised people take a one-sided view of what G-WAN is. It's not really a web server like nginx - this is not the point of inclusion or exclusion. It's an ecosystem of modules around a multi-core kernel, like one of the fastest NoSQL solutions you can get:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2376846/which-key-value-store-is-the-most-promising-stable StackOverflow clearly shows how valuable it can be for NoSQL applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.56.1 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• Relisting because the "keep" opinions by the IPs are unhelpful; they do not address our inclusion criteria per WP:GNG etc. Can we have opinions by people familiar with our standards, please?  Sandstein  06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but improve the article. G-WAN is a well-known piece of Internet technology with likely hundreds of reputable sources discussing it. It'd probably be easier to just go Google it than to discuss deletion. Omnibus (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• You say that there are "likely" hundreds of valid sources, but could you just link to one? The product's development team who is/are posting to the article's talk page can't seem to come up with much more than blog posts and forum discussions, nor did my Googling or targeted searching of IT industry trade magazines before this weird deletion nomination requesting that the article be kept was made. If the product's developers are having trouble getting industry publications that already cover fairly obscure web servers to cover their product, Wikipedia isn't the place to start. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• In just a cursory glance at the article, more than one has already been linked for you. Surely, if you are interested in a technology article like this you have heard of Netcraft, StackOverflow, and About.com? I would hope so. Here, it was covered on About.com and notability is not temporary as per Wikipedia guidelines so "once is enough". Omnibus (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I will say that I was surely wrong about the hundreds of notable sources. It's certainly becoming a hot topic on web tech forums for having relatively little mainstream coverage. None of this is particularly relevant of course, since just one GWAN-specific About.com article makes it notable enough for inclusion given the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG Omnibus (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, web forum mentions or a guy at a content farm having downloaded it once do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". (Like, seriously? About.com? A site whose current headline is "Your Perfect Prom Look"?) Netcraft coverage would be a single substantial source but where is the link you're talking about? I am getting zero hits in the Netcraft.com site search and a Google search of that domain. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete; all the listed references are random one-off 'we benchmarked this' or blog posts by random people on the internet. The salem-news.com link is sort of notability-establishing, but it reads basically like a press release. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The raticle probably need to focus on G-WAN being a tool rather than a "narrow-defined web server". Looks like a great low latency solution for Trading and Scientific apps. Here's the discussion: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7683793/what-is-the-principle-of-low-latency-in-trading-application