Deletion of G-WAN (Web server)

Comment: I'm not seeing an external link to the ''Swiss Federal Institute of Technology'', I'm seeing a reference to the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Wikipedia page.  There is a reference that is labeled as being from a ''Ph.D. student at the Distributed Information Systems Laboratory of EPFL'', however this reference is to a wordpress blog which is a  |self published source which raises reliability concerns. Is there something more concrete such as a press release or some other page on the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology website that covers this software in detail, if so that would a good reference to include here.  a reference to another wikipedia page is not.  Looking over the history, I'm not seeing any evidence of references being removed, thats a pretty serious claim to make.  I dont think anyone denies the existence of this software or ÉPFL, but Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability| existence of this software or any institution involved in it doesn't help establish notability here,  |References to reliable sources does.  Also, please dont misquote, no one has said the article "MUST be deleted permanently".  The article will be deleted if the consensus here is delete.  Please focus on improving the article, not on other editors
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BLOGS||WP:RS)

Comment: No Google news hits that I saw, either from the find sources or my own permutations of g-wan (g wan, g-wan, G-WAN server, etc).  Some google hits, but I'm unsure about the ones I looked at as being reliable...and didn't see much to support the notability other than being 'the fastest web server', based on the blog posting.  To answer the article creator's question - it probably not the only one that should be deleted, but  existing on wikipedia doesn't meant that they too shouldn't also be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: Per invitation from a rather excitable SPA.  The existing references are self-published with the exception of a blog posting from a college student.  If there's something more significant, I could not locate it; various forum postings and a slashdot run is all I could see.  It may be helpful if energy spent screaming about censorship be directed at locating sources to use for the article that meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: notability not established by sources. Bugapi, please note that on wikipedia |Notability is a bit of jargon. We don't mean the definition that you can find in a dictionary, we mean the one in the guideline on notability. In a nutshell, that guideline says that an article topic is considered 'notable' when it has been written about by independent, |reliable sources. In this case that would probably mean newspapers or IT trade magazines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: strongly, and would suggest speedy deletion.  |Yet another
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)