Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RetroShare


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RetroShare

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

spam with no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying wp:n. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally disagree. It's a project released under the GPL, I don't think it's spam. I use this software, and I came here hoping to find some critical analysis of it's security. Independent info exists (| like here) and I believe RetroShare was also recently featured in a Slashdot article. I feel that that alone makes it worth maintaining a page about. It's a project started recently, so I guess the limited coverage is to be expected. I found out about RetroShare while reading about Bittorent's implementation of the Kademlia DHT here on Wikipedia. The DHT library that it used was mentioned in the article, and is apparently part of the same project. Sorry for the IP signature, not a regular user. 50.37.124.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 I also totally disagree. This is not spam. I heard about this project months ago and came to Wikipedia to check on some background. I'm very surprised that this is article is even being considered for deletion. Right not searching for "Retroshare" in Google alone produces over 269,000 hits. It is a fairly new project, but there is a lot of interest in the project in the Linux community. 70.36.142.214 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's got coverage on various sites. I'm not sure all those sources are reliable but some are.  It's also been featured on Slashdot, which indicates a certain level of importance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only number 1 looks like a good source. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.