Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 3.1

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 delete and redirect. There was unanimity that the page cannot remain due to failure to meet WP:V. A subsidiary discussion took place around whether a redirect was appropriate and this was inconclusive. However, I note that Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1 was released and Windows Server 3.1 seems a plausible search term for someone seeking information about a server release. Redirects are both cheap and potentially helpful so I have created it. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to take it to WP:RFD. TerriersFan (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 3.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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]

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.