Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 3.1

Windows Server 3.1

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

No sources whatsoever, not MOS Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows NT 3.1, which is where a 3.1 Server version of Windows exists. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for some reason it appears to me this is supposed to be about Windows for Workgroups ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MOS compliance has no bearing on whether an article should be deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, I searched Microsoft's website and Google for "Windows server 3.1" and there appears to have never been any such OS. So delete unless sources can be found. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there is a Windows NT Server 3.1, so a redirect should be in order. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please provide a reliable source.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was Windows NT Server ever referred to (by Microsoft) as Windows Server 3.1 (with citation)? If so, Redirect otherwise Delete — Safety Cap (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say no relation.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The standard for having a redirect is would someone type it in to the search box be looking for the target. And that seems to be a likely condition, since if you forgot the NT part you'd miss the article 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        But I don't feel the relation is strong enough for that.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This operating system is totally bogus. The only source given in the article miserably fails verification. What are you waiting for? Delete it, now! Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect--There is no need for the red tape; any user has the power to redirect the page to the article that has information about the only true 3.1 version of Windows Server. The article contains nothing but lies. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct: The user who has written this article is blocked for doing it. I am about to go BOLD and do it now! 15:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I am opposed to a redirect, as above, because there is no relation, and I see almost no-one referring it to Windows Server 3.1.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I was about say the same thing; but I changed my mind when it occurred to me that regardless of this AfD, simply Windows Server 3.1 may be a plausible candidate for redirect. But I am willing to give up my view on this matter. Fleet Command (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Get rid of the current version one way or another. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:V. Source cited [1] does not verify this server product ever existed. The creator of this article is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows NT 3.1. —Ruud 18:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruud, can you explain why we need a redirect? Almost no-one (in a Google search at least) calls it by that.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the correct name, but it's not an entirely implausible mistake either. Redirects generally don't hurt. —Ruud 00:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article you linked mentions little about server-related stuff.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect is not a good idea because "Windows Server 3.1" could plausibly refer to NT Advanced Server 3.1 or to Windows for Workgroups 3.1, the first of the 16-bit Windows versions to have server functionality. Given who created this article, I suspect it was hoax that still amuses the creator with this discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I initially wanted to propose to create a disambiguation page between NT and WfW, but WfW was mainly intended as a client of NT, not a server OS. I really couldn't care less what the creator does or doesn't think of this discussion, seems quite irrelevant to me. —Ruud 03:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]