Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerberus FTP Server

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. WP:SNOW close (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 05:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus FTP Server

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article recreated by SPA after deletion. SPA has never provided sources for this article. It does not appear to be notable. Miami33139 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using gnews I can find a couple of sources [1], [2] and there are perhaps more [3]. I don't know about their reliability. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

There are plenty of sources. Check out Tucows, CNet, or Snapfiles. The history description comes directly from the author. [4] [5] [6]

- That isn't significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [7], [8], and [9]. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two are entirely insignificant. The first two are ok, but I wouldn't base the entire notability of an article on just those two. Miami33139 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree about one of the sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did find [10]. Joe Chill (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Joe Chill. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Well known product by anyone with relevant technical background. These feverish automatic AfD noms on software are so out of hand. LotLE×talk 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those rare instances where there is actually sufficient sources for a software product listed on AFD. Wow, it really can happen! JBsupreme (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While most of the references provided here are download page, it is covered in tutorial style in two books: [11] [12]. It is also mentioned in a few other books by itself (i.e. not in a list of similar products): [13] [14], [15] [16], and in a number of academic papers: [17], [18], [19], [20] (you can easily find more in google scholar), has articles announcing new versions in well-known magazines, e.g. these three in c't, which means this is one of the notable Windows FTP servers. The company itself is also notable, some of the links provided by others above are false positives because of that (they discuss other products by this company like their Cerberus Internet Scanner/NTInfoscan now Typhon (see [21] for that). Pcap ping 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news has 29 results, and Google book search has 9. Dream Focus 12:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep failure to bother with WP:BEFORE, apparently on the basis of assumptions; odd that when refs were produced, the nom. admitted that two were substantial, but continued the afd. Snow Keep is probably appropriate DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.