Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caudium (web server)

Caudium (web server)

Caudium (web server) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this web server. Of the two sources provided, one is primary and one is about a different product. I couldn't find anything else that would help this meet the general notability guidelines. There is a lengthy tutorial on the Linux Documentation Project, but it was contributed by one of the developers, so it's not useable as a secondary source. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NPRODUCT failure since 2011. (The article itself has been around since 2004; this might be another remnant of our earlier days when inclusion standards were more lax.) No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Only secondary source does not mention Caudium. Searching on google reveals the only mentions of it are either mirrors of us, 1 page in mirrors of a PHP guide from 2004, and Linux guides enumerating every web server under the sun.

MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge or Redirect to Roxen_(web_server)

I found a few french articles mentioning it:

http://www.sietmanagement.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Cas-Apache.pdf

http://www.logiciellibre.net/download/nd-ossfs-4-v0.1.pdf

is that enough for a source to warrant a mention in the Roxen article?

I also found papers about PHP that mention that caudium supports PHP. That doesn't sound useful i think. ~2026-25420-91 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Those do not seem to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources ~2026-26536-07 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. These aer not reliable and do not establish notability nor WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion in the Roxen article. And the first one has only a passing mention of Caudium, no in-depth coverage. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I did do a search--and I am just not finding enough significant coverage to justify keeping the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge. Fails NPRODUCT and WP:GNG with no substantive coverage in secondary sources. This does not appear to even warrant a mention at Roxen (web server). If someone wants to add coverage to the Roxen article in the future, they will need to find suitable reliable sources, which are not present in the article (nor in this discussion) so there is nothing to merge. A redirect can always be re-created in the event that happens. Otherwise this is destined to become an {{R without mention}} that is also an {{R from merge}}. Such dead-end redirects do not serve readers and do not align with the purpose of redirects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

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.