Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turtle F2F


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 00:30Z 

Turtle F2F

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research, non-notable, and reads like an advertisement Nardman1 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC) And from the "11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS'05) " Touisiau 12:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; no evidence of substantial coverage by third-party sources; no demonstration of notability. Walton monarchist89 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . Noteworthy because unlike many other anonymous P2P software that provide no proof that they are really anonymous, this one is backed by research papers available as references at the end of the article. Including a paper from the 2005 Usenix conference . A quick Google Scholar shows that this software is cited by other papers as well: from the "Applied Public Key Infrastructure: 4th International Workshop: Iwap 2005".
 * Keep and fix. I agree the article is mostly drawn from the project's website, but that can be remedied. It does seem to be the least notable F2F project, but I think any P2P or F2F project is notable enough to rate an article. Tualha (Talk) 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose Andrew Tanenbaum's involvement makes it a bit more notable . Tualha (Talk) 02:04, 9 February 2007 (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.