Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Junkbuster

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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Junkbuster

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

Delete: non-notable, essentially defunct mediasite. Quis separabit? 02:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, although this received attention as shown here, here, here and here but nothing significant and notable. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IJB is historically important. Besides that, it's been extensively discussed and recommended in many books on Internet security and privacy, some of which can be seen on Google Books, such as [1], [2], [3], etc. Also: review in InfoWorld, review in Chip, and review in iX. More coverage via this article in Heise.de among other hits from the same domain. I could find more, I'm sure, but I'm satisfied with what I've already found. Three reviews in reliable sources should be enough to establish notability even if you discount the dozens of books that discuss it in less depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While IJB may be historically important, nothing indicates that it is notable. If authoritative references were to critically discuss the subject, I might think otherwise.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rpclod: Excuse me? It's got three in-depth reviews in reliable sources. What kind of authoritative references are you looking for? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on notability, but if deleted, could redirect or partly merge to Privoxy, a successor product which mentions the IJB. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Privoxy - obsolete software version, got reviewed in related sources, promoting the subject, but did not attain notability, should be mentioned as the basis from which Privoxy was developped. (It is already mentioned there, expanding just a little may be helpful.) Kraxler (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title is reviewed in detail in this issue of InfoWorld. It also has more than passing mentions in numerous books [4][5][6][7][8]. I would also be OK with a merge provided that the material is fully WP:PRESERVEd. SpinningSpark 19:56, 16 June 2015 (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.