Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www1

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Www1

Minor technical topic; not notable. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for simply being inaccurate. What they are describing as a "prefix" is more commonly called a hostname. Nothing worth merging or saving. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you consider fixing the accuracy then, if you read my chat you will realize just why this needs to be included in some form or the other in the search.... first I called the hostname a prefix to simplify for other users not familiar with specialized language but if you think that is fundamental in accuracy it would be appropriate to change it. Additionally I continued to explain exactly what the prefix acts as anyway so I think you did not read the article completely. SADADS (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other hostnames like chat, ns1, ns2, ftp, store, site, shop, etc. Most of these are more common than "www1", should we have articles on all of these? The entire article could accurately be written as: "www1 is a hostname that is sometimes used by some domains (companies) for offloading server loads to another host (server) in their network." I am sorry, but I still have to say delete as I still don't see a criteria listed on Wikipedia that would include this article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dennis Brown + fails wp:n, and it's sorta inaccurate _David ^WS _(contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix/ or merge and redirect I think articles on ftp and perhaps the other topics Dennis mentions would be helpful also. Article seems perfectly encyclopedic, although it needs to be improved. And it's not just a definition. Doesn't this information make the encyclopedia more complete? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to host name (or maybe domain name. Nothing links to this article and it will never be much more than a DicDef. Matt Deres (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not a bad idea. I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect to the appropriate article section if this information was (fixed) and included elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds ok, but problematic, same as above. www1 isn't the most common hostname. Why not create redirects for the most common hostnames? After all, if www1 needs a redirect, then hostnames that are 10x more common and get typed in 10x more often SURELY must need it for the exact same reasons, right? store. site. irc. ns1. ftp. forum. forums. blog. Netcraft can probably provide tons of others that are as common as www1, and verify this, then we just put a disambig statement on all those that already have articles... I'm not trying to be smart, it is just more problematic than it might look at first glance. The original author meant well, but this is a can of worms that we are better off not opening. I won't get in a fight about it, but want you to understand that there are some sound reasons why this doesn't work so well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've certainly made a good argument for keeping this article. And I would like to note that your initial reasoning stated "delete for simply being inaccurate" which I'm confident you know is a reason to fix the article and not to delete it. I trust you'll take action accordingly. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The great part is that no fixing is needed! Hostname already exists and is the proper term. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to webserver 76.66.198.46 (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I took the time to at least make this article accurate, although it still needs deleting. The one source was deleted as not only did it fail wp:rs, but it was simply wrong. Feel free to revert. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing special about "www1". It could be "bippitybppetyboo" and it would still be fine. It's essentially a host-name form of load balancing (computing) and there's not even a compelling reason for a redirect as using www1 does not necessarily mean that load-blanacing is being attempted. It could be a case of multiple sites in a large organisation that have different business owners responsible for the content and they've numbered when www1, www2, www3. In other words, the article content isn't even accurate. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This subject is very encyclopedic. I found the information on why www1 is sometimes used to be helpful and interesting. I hope whatever decision is made, people searching for an explanation of this type of web address will be able to find the information they are looking for in our encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2008 (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.