Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StealthNet


 * 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) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

StealthNet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any coverage, and the only references given in the article are forum posts. Haakon (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a review of this software in a German computer magazine and several news-posts on German online IT-Newspapers (like heise.de http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Filesharing-mit-StealthNet-wenig-anonym-180173.html) The linked article is just an example (and quite an old one) that refers to the quite very very old version 8.1.x. with about 4000 to 5000 users I think it is worth to be mentioned in the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylee Sato (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that the forum posts are the only way the changelogs are released, so I think they have to be linked.--Andylee Sato (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no problem to have them there, but there needs to be additional references to reliable coverage from reliable third-parties. Haakon (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to include some non-forum-links at the upcoming evening. would this be enough to get rid of this discussion? ;-)--188.22.30.50 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It could, if the links pointed to cases of significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. I added the suggested Heise.de source now, which I think helps. Haakon (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * StealthNet is a popular program especially in France and Germany. It is relevant as it is one of the few (IMHO the only) usable anonymous filesharing programs, which in term constitute a politically relevant development vis à vis internet censorship.  The article itself is well written and informative.
 * Here are a few (over 70k) StealthNet-related Google hits: http://www.google.de/search?client=opera&rls=de&q=stealthnet&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
 * Please don't delete articles just because you haven't heard of the subject or don't care for it. Other readers need the information.  Maikel (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i am wondering why rshare article in english wikipedia never got a requestfordeletion? that article is way smaller and its just a subset of the stealthnet stuff, or to say the rshare (protocol, originally also a client) efforts are being continued in the stealthnet project for quite a while now. english wikipedia is also suffering from the deletionist in similar scales as in the german wikipedia it seems. delete wars and exclusionism at all cost. why delete just a single bit of non-spam information from a user-driven project such as wikipedia and lose the work that countless other fellow participants try to contribute. i will never understand. :( Suggestednickname (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would much prefer keeping this article. I agree, actually, anyone can access to more than 74000 links to Stealthnet (just try google). Regarding to WP criteria, there are reason to keep it, as many similar software articles, on many domains. --Philippe.petrinko (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (Sorry my account is global but French originated (and fully identified) - but badly consolidated between FR and EN Wikipedia subdomains :-/ )

+ Keep article, relevant programm within relevant topic. Getting pretty popular in Germany, France and Japan. --80.152.134.128 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete articles don't get kept by counting Google hits or claiming they're getting popular somewhere. We need reliable sources, which at the moment we just don't seem to have. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andrew Lenahan said it best.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 16:09, 17 March 2010 (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.