- 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 keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lsh (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)
I would have prodded this article were it not for the fact it was created in 2003 and has a substantial number of third-party edits by established editors. Software whose notability is not supported by a Google search. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources (q.v.) treat this alongside several other packages as one of a set of lesser-known alternatives to SSH. Merger to some similar treatment by Wikipedia would therefore seem to be the answer. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of SSH clients is where I learned of the existence of this article. It was pointed out to me here that some of its entries have articles when they shouldn't. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said there, that's what tends to happen when people redlink every entry in a list indiscriminately. (It's worse when it's a list of people.) Have a look at Smith and Yaghmour (both cited in the article). They treat LSH, FreSSH, and others all together. Smith lists them as SSH servers, not clients. ISBN 9780596008956 pp. 519 et seq. also treats them together, as do a few others. I'd say that there's an argument for a similar prose treatment within Wikipedia somewhere, to which this would obviously redirect. A quick rename of this page, and placement as a sub-article of Secure Shell is probably the speediest idea. You could then merge FreSSH and others in, and create a few redirects. The question is what scope to use for the subarticle. List of Secure Shell implementations? Secure Shell implementations? Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of SSH clients is where I learned of the existence of this article. It was pointed out to me here that some of its entries have articles when they shouldn't. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Where do we draw the line to say that something is not notable enough to mention vs. something that is notable enough for inclusion in a list or a comparison vs. something that is notable enough for a stand-alone article? List articles with members that do not have articles written about them routinely get deleted. WP:NOTABILITY really applies to both, because it merely requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Our standard for "significant" is that the sources give enough detail that no original research is needed. There are 2-3 uncited claims in the article. I've flagged them as such. They should be removed to make a shorter stub (which should be kept) or should have citations added. If we feel there is not significant coverage to support a stub, I'd contend there is not significant coverage to support the summary in a software comparison article either. --Karnesky (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Karnesky. I disagree that for this category of article that Google hit count is relevant. An open source project that had had several releases and have been mentioned in third party sources is sufficient for inclusion on those merits alone. I would also endorse Uncle G's solution if implemented. patsw (talk) 14:15, 15 July 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.