Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steg steganography software


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Steg steganography software

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The PROD placed by User:MER-C was contested with no explanation, but I agree with their rationale "Promotional article about unremarkable software." SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  21:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  21:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. MER-C 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with their rationale "Promotional article about unremarkable software.". The software is freeware and we have already other similar wikipedia articles of similar niche software that certainly are not famous to the general public and some of these does not have any scientific article in their references (Steg steganography software has one). Examples StegoShare, OpenPuff, StegFS, only to mention the software on the same topic that have an approved article on wikipedia. For consistency we should keep (or propose to delete) all of these articles. io.massimo.m 11:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Try reading Other stuff exists. Just because other bad articles exist that nobody has deleted yet, is not in itself reason to keep the article. Possibly a mention on a broader article such as Steganography tools would be possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - uncourced therefore no evidence of notability. Searches yield nothing other than the expected download sites. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 10:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep searches yield nothing other than the expected download sites" does not convince me because it cannot be objective but subject to change due to search methods. Instead the comparison with similar, already accepted pages, is objective so for me the page is ok dexmac 12:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that this meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete just a self-promotional page linking to itself. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2018 (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.