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. Neither keep nor delete arguments seem to be strong. Relisting didn't attract much more input either, so the article is left defaulted to keep. --Der yck C. 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (webserver)

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

tagged with notability concerns for 1 month. Deprodded without improvement 3 weeks ago with suggestion that AFD is a better course. Unremarkable open source web server. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Provided references are largely primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 14:27, 10 May 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.

Delete, weakly. Note that a previous version of this article was discussed a month ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver). Since that nomination, the article has been moved, which is apparently why the old AfD was not picked up. That discussion was quite inconclusive. I nominated it; I withdrew the nomination.

I'm still of the opinion that there's no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It was, however, listed in lists of also-ran web servers in several books. The project is fairly old. And it's free software, and several editors prefer to give free software a pass on strict sourcing requirements.

And since this has recently been discussed fairly extensively without consensus, I surely wouldn't mind if the nominator withdrew this nomination either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think I'll leave it as is. The previous AFD was a mess and got wrapped up with some unrelated issues in similar articles as well as some edit waring from an editor that was ultimately blocked. Hopefully this discussion can remain on course a bit better.--RadioFan (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an unpopular product. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment popularity is not generally a criteria for notability. Can you expand on how you see this as notable, preferably with some examples of coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 18:58, 10 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 17 May 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.