- 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 redirect to Anonymous P2P. Hmm. The nominator and Delete !voter are quite correct in that the article as it stands fails WP:GNG ... one of the Keep !votes has no rationale at all, and the other quotes sources which aren't in the article. Therefore, either Delete or a redirect to a parent article (thus preserving the edit history in the event that someone could expand the article with sources) seems prudent. Black Kite 18:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitblinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE. This software product fails general notability. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - saying it "fails general notability" doesn't make it true. I think it is notable. Notability is almost always a judgment call, an opinion, if it was objective we wouldn't need the AfD process. You need to make a case for why it fails notability. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May I suggest that he meant the general notability guidelines, not notability in general? That is, it looks like the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you believe that it has, producing a couple of WP:RS sources would make it a far more convincing rebuttal. — Rankiri (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. In case I was not clear, I meant that this subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is covered in diverse sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only a single source is provided. The general notability guideline requires multiple sources. Dew Kane (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2010 (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.