Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTTP File Server

HTTP File Server

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software has won many awards. --Sbluen 03:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources appear to be 2 forum posts and a Wiki... not a good sign. --W.marsh 04:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of those review sites have no credibility and some are just saying its not spyware. Non-notable. Corpx 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources cited. kingboyk 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article also fails WP:RS (eMule used as source?). --Tinctorius 08:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This software was reviewed on several printed magazines, in Italy (Internet Magazine, nov 2006), Japan (Hacker Japan, don't remember the issue, i have a copy in my apartment), France (SVM magazine, may 2006) and Germany at least. The last article, April 2007, it's 4 pages long, but since it is copyrighted material i cannot put it in the WP article. --Rejetto 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is to put in the reference, and translate & add a key sentence where the article discusses the importance of the software. Ditto for the others. When you have done that, it will meet the standard requirements for Notability.

Weak keep, in the hope that you'll do this. DGG 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's what i needed to know. Can references be not an URL/link (being them printed), but just report the name of the magazine and other coordinates?--Rejetto 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And yes, references can be to sources not on the internet. Printed references often have more weight than internet references due to the transient nature of web links. 212.181.133.116 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy. --Infrangible 01:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided there are more refs placed there fast. SMC 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to be more popular in the non-english-speaking world. I'm persuaded by that pdf of the article in April's c't - that at least should be cited, as DGG mentioned above. Smalljim 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]