Talk:MinIO

Deprod

This is potentially notable as evidenced by: , , ~Kvng (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

biased editing?

Isn't there a wikipedia rule against editing an article you have some sort of vested interest in? It would appear several edits occurring May 5-6 were by a user named [Garima Kapoor], which is also the name of the Minio co-founder and CTO: https://minio.io/team/ If there is such a policy, these edits should be reverted by someone with more wikipedia chops than me. 2620:11E:1000:120:BDC7:ED2B:5E8F:3FF0 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Article focus

This article is primarily focused on MinIO the software, rather than MinIO the company. I am not convinced that MinIO the company would be considered notable enough to be the focus of an article, but, if it is, a second article should be created for it, see for examples Elasticsearch/Elastic NV and Couchbase Server/Couchbase, Inc..

For this reason, I will roll back most of the good-faith edits by Ubiquitouslarry, which modified the intro and infobox to focus on MinIO the company. I would appreciate it if no further edits in this vain are made until further discussion on this talk page occurs. Note that the MinIO article already had some details about the associated company in a subsection, which could be added to if desired. Best regards Kiwi128 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Advertising

Right now a lot of this article reads as advertising, yet straight up removing it would basically make this article a stub. For example, the entire "Prominent users" section is just name-dropping.

What direction should this page go towards? Right now I'm having a hard time finding independent sources of any significance - I'm not sure it's notable enough to have its own article.

ChlorideCull (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this an advertisement or information?

While Minio is gaining traction in the OSS community, it's not that big still. Also the prominent users section is unverifiable. No companies listed have put out proof of their MinIO deployments as far as I can tell.

This page should probably just get removed wholesale. It doesn't benefit anyone, and all the stuff on here can be found on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.204.75.39 (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page is very useful to independent developers like myself

> It doesn't benefit anyone

I'm not sure why the above claim is being made.

It's not true from my perspective.

I and others I know greatly benefit from this page providing 3rd party (independent) summary commentary about MinIO, precisely because it's concise, thoughtful, and separate from the company's own official marketing pages. Personally I know nothing about the company behind MinIO, but I do know it would be a great shame if this article ends up being deleted :(

The rooker (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC): I have the same opinion. If any brand/product article should become biased or advertising on Wikipedia, it can be edited. I prefer to link to Wikipedia as object source about any product, if an article exists. Especially since MinIO is "not well known" (yet), but is currently one of the few FOSS-licensed and production stable Object Storage implementations available IMO.

Has been completely replaced with AIStor?

Apparently, MinIO is no longer available and completely replaced by a different product named AIStor. Can you verify? ~2026-14482-83 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

correct procedure for abandoned/unmaintained software?

This software is no longer maintained and has been archived. @Minioedit reverted a change to the article saying that "the software still exists" even though it has been abandoned/archived

If minioedit is related to the project in the real world, I can see how they may take a different view of this. But I think it's important to include the fact that that it is no longer maintained, similar to how Microsoft_Publisher does ~2026-36035-99 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)