- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TeSSH (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)
Notability prod contested with the rationale, TeSSH has the same notability as other software listed in the Comparison of SSH clients pages such as AbsoluteTelnet, eSSH Client, lsh, etc. This search is evidence that it is simply not true. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to Wiki to I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. The www.tessh.com web site is brand new and still in development, thus it does not have high Google ranking yet. The previous site at www.zuggsoft.com is the previous site and can be searched for TeSSH references. Doing the same Google search as your example above on most of the other software clients listed on Comparison of SSH clients show similar poor results, so perhaps all of those pages should be removed too? Mpotter27 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps they should. Often, articles fall through the cracks and are discovered only when a competitor tries to insert an article of its own. That happens all the time. As for references, we're looking for something third-party, the kind of website where the developpers of TeSSH cannot get even an iota changed without involving an attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken care of one of the articles linked to from Comparison of SSH clients, which is currently the topic of another AfD here. Interestingly, a lot of links from that page are external to developpers' websites and not internal to Wikipedia articles. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless WP:NOTABILITY can be satisfied through independent and reliable sources. Furthermore, mention of this should be removed from that software comparison (as there are no sources to support the claims made there). --Karnesky (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine removing the TeSSH page and simply making a link from the Comparison of SSH clients as long as the Wiki policy is consistently enforced on other pages listed there. I note that many pages are marked with Notability issues, but have not been marked for fast deletion like my article was. As far as removing the information about TeSSH on the comparison page, I am the verifiable author of TeSSH and owner of Zugg Software so I would be the most knowledgeable source. TeSSH is a re-branding of CMUD software for business use and there are plenty of 3rd-party references to CMUD out there. The authors of the other software listed on the comparison page are often the ones who added their listing to the comparison. I certainly cannot edit their information or mark their pages for deletion myself without being accused of competitor vandalism. I will stand by the decision of the community but am simply looking for consistent enforcement of Wiki policies.16:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:WAX. This debate is not about the other software, it is about TeSSH. Other software can and will be challenged as needed & articles improved or deleted. Time and effort are what make consistent policy enforcement & Blanchardb has already nominated another article for deletion. I have cleaned up the software comparison page. The discussion of the content of that comparison page is a little bit tangential to the decision of whether the article on TeSSH should be deleted, but I will indulge it because there have been some proposals to delete the TeSSH article and leave the entry on a list or comparison. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory. It is reasonable to require notability (as tested by an article's existence and survivor) for list membership. The list is then also a useful directory of wikipedia articles on a given topic. Furthermore, we cannot rely solely on primary sources for any page, including list/comparison articles. TeSSH is not being singled out & I have already removed other deleted articles from that software comparison. --Karnesky (talk) 18:24, 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, JForget 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whether other articles are deleted or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. It is not independantly notable and should be deleted on that ground. Also, remove the wikilink to it from Comparison_of_SSH_clients. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and remove wiki-link, we're not a directory of non-notable software packages. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 08:23, 17 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.