Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal server

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 of the discussion was} delete. Verifiability is non-negotiable, Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms, and as has been adequately addressed below (in particular by Craig Stuntz), the sources provided do not give confidence either that this article is sufficiently verified as an accepted term as it stands, nor that a consistent universally accepted definition for this term could be given if someone tried to rewrite it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly this is related to Virtuoso Universal Server which is currently also at AfD. Both articles were created by User:KingsleyIdehen. The nominator of the AfD for Universal Virtual Server also included the article Universal server in the nomination, but the deletion of that article (the first version, not the current relist) did not entail the deletion of Universal server, per the discussion, in my opinion (I closed that AfD).

• The original AfD for Virtuoso Universal Server is here
• The current AfD for Virtuoso Universal Server (a relist of the AfD for OpenLinkVirtuoso) is here.

The allegation is that this article (Universal server) is all part of a ploy to get a link to OpenLink into Wikipedia. Be that as it may, the article should stand or fall on its own merits. Herostratus 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. No evidence shown of use of this term outside of product marketing. The products themselves may be notable, but the marketing is not, and the term doesn't appear to have any use outside of that. I agree with Herostratus that this issue should be considered separately from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtuoso Universal Server, though. --Craig Stuntz 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO and as advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Information technology produces hundreds of "neologisms" for emerging new consepts, WP:NEO is no grounds for deletion. A google search shows that the phrase "universal server" is widely used. -- Petri Krohn 06:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Being a neologism is not a reason for deletion? WP:NEO says it is ("In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or Articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term."), and many articles are deleted for this reason. Here's one example. The Google search is frankly not informative. The PC Mag dictionary entry would be persuasive if it actually supported the article, but, well, click through and see what it says. --Craig Stuntz 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything published in a IT encyclopedia is old even before it is printed, by the time it is available for free on-line, it is most likely outdated. The dictonary only shows that the term was already used in the 1990s, although its meaning may have evolved since then. -- Petri Krohn 01:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It hasn't "evolved." It's describing something completely different. The so-called "definition" in the article is unsupported by any reference and simply describes the Virtuoso Universal Server product. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the other products mentioned at the end or the definition from PC magazine, which mostly describes those other products and never found common use. These are all brand names, not a product category. --Craig Stuntz 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Petri Krohn. Also note that PCMag lists it in their dictionary. While the term is used in product names, there are 3 companies offering the technology. So while Virtuoso Universal Server may be commercial cruft, the generic term seems notable. Dgies 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the PC mag article doesn't describe the term as used here (read it). There are, in fact, more than three companies who make a product which they dub a "Universal Server," but they all do different things. Not listed in the article, for example, is RealNetworks's Helix Universal Server, which is a web server with a streaming media feature. Then there's PGP Universal Server, which is a firewall that can supply public keys. There are many other examples, but I'm purposely limiting discussion here to those which are substantially more well-known than the OpenLink product. Oracle Universal Server, while referenced in the article, doesn't meet the "definition" given there. In short, an accurate definition of the term might be, "A server for which the vendor's marketing department has determined that the adjective 'Universal' would maximize revenue." That's all fine and good, but it's not notable in my opinion and it's certainly not what the article says right now. --Craig Stuntz 13:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change this into a disambiguation page listing the various notable products that are known as "universal servers." Perhaps also include a dictionary definition of the general concept of a "universal server," if needed. 68.50.203.109 09:14, 9 July 2006 (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.