Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiteSpeed Web Server

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pingumeister (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 17 September 2017 (changed my mind due to new sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

LiteSpeed Web Server

LiteSpeed Web Server (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)

Claims to be the 4th most popular web server, but I can't actually find any WP:RS which talk about it. You would think that a web server which supposedly drives 2.9% of the sites on the internet would have tons of stuff written about it. The fact that I can find so little leads me to believe that the reported statistics are dubious. My guess is that most of the sites which use this are parked domains and things like that (but that's just speculation). Lots of mentions in hosting provider how-to documents, but that's not what we need. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenLiteSpeed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I feel pretty stupid since I've been attempting to maintain this article without actually looking into detail about its notability, but in any case... the software appears to be used almost exclusively by large, commercial web hosting services, and as such there are very little WP:RS that even mention it; any articles about LSWS are apparently published by companies who use the software themselves, or are otherwise connected. So yes, the statistics are likely biased or fudged. Oh well. -- Pingumeister(talk) 14:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hello, my name is Dmitri Tikhonov -- I am a programmer employed by LiteSpeed Technologies, the maker of the LiteSpeed Web Server. Obviously, I would like to see to it that this page not be deleted. In reply to the original criticism, the 2.9% figure comes from W3Techs, which is used as WP:RS in many Wikipedia articles. The position that W3Tech statistics are fudged has to be proved. Other than W3Techs, LiteSpeed Web Server is mentioned in NetCraft web server surveys from February and May of this year. Would you call NetCraft numbers biased? In regards to LiteSpeed Web Server usage: yes, we proudly serve the needs of our customers -- large, commercial web hosting providers. It does not make our software product less legitimate than Apache, Nginx, or IIS. I would like to be given an opportunity to improve this Wikipedia page to adhere to standards so that it is not deleted. I can look for, and include in the page, more -- or different -- WP:RS if that is what it takes. LiteSpeed Web Server is the fruit of many years of labor, of ingenuity and sweat of hardworking people. Please be fair to them. Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite concerned here about the conflict of interest you pose, if you are willing to be a major contributor to the article. Please read the policy guideline here: WP:COI. Also, nobody is being unfair to the creators of the software. I am a software engineer myself, and I frequently work on software which I know does not meet the notability standard for Wikipedia. It's not about the quality of the article or the quality of the software in question. Please read the general notability guideline here: WP:GNG. As for the topic of the LightSpeed Technologies organization, there is a specific notability guideline for organizations here: WP:ORG. Please do not be offended that this article is being considered for deletion. Cheers, -- Pingumeister(talk) 09:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Also, for what it's worth, if you could actually find multiple WP:RS (and have them verified by other editors, due to your COI), it would make a strong case to keep the article. However, multiple people have tried and failed to find such sources.) -- Pingumeister(talk) 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that I am biased; I do not try to hide it. I can promise to do my best to be objective when editing the article. However, I examined several pages similar to LiteSpeed Web Server and I see that when most of a Wikipedia article about a software product (a web server in particular) is written by the person(s) or company behind the product, it is flagged as a problem. This puts me in an interesting position: if I modify the article to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines, I would be violating another set of Wikipedia guidelines... Would you, Pingumeister, be willing to make appropriate improvements, given the new references I provided below? You have already been maintaining this page (thank you!), could you perhaps continue? If not, how do you think I should proceed? Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the stats, I didn't mean to imply that they were fraudulent. Perhaps my use of, dubious, was a poor choice of word. What I was trying to say was that usage stats alone do not meet our notability requirements. What we're looking for is coverage in third-party sources which talk about the program. That's what I'm not seeing. The gold standard would be articles in wide-circulation, general-interest publications (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc). Coverage in that tier isn't required, but, I'm not even finding coverage in the more specialized industry publications. It's those kinds of third-party reliable sources that we're looking for. I also work in the software world, and had never heard of this until I stumbled onto this article. The fact that I had never heard of it doesn't really mean anything, but it is what got me started doing a little research. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I can certainly confirm that the software exists, I have to agree that I can't find anything to indicate notability under the general notability guidelines. Avram (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I made this a separate comment because this is a large entry; if this is bad form, I can merge it under my original comment above.) I spent some time looking for reliable sources that would demonstrate LiteSpeed Web Server's notability and I found what I think are good references:
  • A book on system administration by a major publisher recommends considering using LiteSpeed Web Server as one of Apache alternatives that are faster than Apache and use less memory. (The other alternatives listed are lighttpd and Zeus.)[1]
  • A research paper presented three months ago at a conference of a major technical professional organization counts LiteSpeed Web Server in the list of six popular HTTP/2 implementations (the other five are Apache, H2O, nghttpd, Nginx, and Tengine). In this paper, the LiteSpeed implementation of HTTP/2 compares favorably to the others in several ways.[2]
  • Another research paper from 2017 presented by at a different conference of another major organization by a team from Communication and Distributed Systems department of the largest technical university in Germany include LiteSpeed Web Server in the list of web servers that dominate H2-capable set of web server software (others being Nginx, IdeaWebServer, Apache, and IIS). [3]
There are two things I would like to point out:
  1. LiteSpeed is definitely being both noted and noticed.
  2. Majority of the other web servers in the lists above -- Apache, H2O, IdeaWebServer, IIS, lighttpd, nghttpd, Nginx, Tengine, and Zeus -- have dedicated Wikipedia pages. (Those that do not have dedicated pages are either relative new (H2O, Tengine) or obscure for English-speaking audience (IdeaWebServer).)
Dmitri tikhonov (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:MILL, as nothing indicates why the "4th most popular web server available today" is markedly different from any other web server. Also contains language that violates WP:PROMO.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve: I have changed my mind, since I believe the works cited by Dmitri tikhonov (talk · contribs) hold up and I have added them to the article. The fact that academics are referring to the software, and that it is mentioned in major books (e.g. those published by O'Reilly) about server administration, means it passes WP:MILL. It definitely requires further editing to remove WP:PROMO language, and could be shortened since some information relies too heavily on dubious sources, but the core of the article is fine, given these new sources, in my opinion. -- Pingumeister(talk) 11:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tom., Adelstein, (2007). Linux system administration. Lubanovic, Bill. (1st ed ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly. ISBN 9780596009526. OCLC 71808193. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Jiang, M.; Luo, X.; Miu, T.; Hu, S.; Rao, W. (June 2017). "Are HTTP/2 Servers Ready Yet?". 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS): 1661–1671. doi:10.1109/icdcs.2017.279.
  3. ^ Torsten Zimmermann, Jan Rüth, Benedikt Wolters, Oliver Hohlfeld (2017). "How HTTP/2 Pushes the Web: An Empirical Study of HTTP/2 Server Push" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LiteSpeed_Web_Server&oldid=801053371"