Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProFTPD

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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProFTPD

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Was deleted previously under the name ProFTPd. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – To me it is more than sufficiently notable. ProFTPD has a ton of book references for satisfying WP:GNG. There are also several journal articles on the subject of ftp security that provide coverage of ProFTPD. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It's a very popular selection among Linux distros and is mentioned in several Linux and Unix admin manuals. But it's going to be WP:MINIMUM at best. -- BenTels (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: ProFTPD, vsftpd and Pure-FTPd form the Top-3 of the most popular FTP-servers in the Linux world. It is not really understandable why the old lemma ProFTPd was deleted in first place. --Tomakos (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I suppose that you meant "among the most popular, feature rich .." by writing "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article". Different to the Windows-world, in the Linux world being "feature rich" is not automatically considered to be something good. So this is not to be understood as promotion, rather than a description of the facts. Other FTP-servers focus e.g. on simplicity - being right the opposite of feature rich. Nothing is better or worst, it all depends on someone's requirements. Nevertheless I have changed this part of the lemma, so that the comparison and the meaning of "feature rich" is more clear to the readers, I hope, and it feels less promotional. --Tomakos (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - O'Reilly and other books, as well as websites appear to give sufficient notability to the article. - Sudo Ghost 19:59, 16 August 2012 (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.