Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WS FTP (2nd nomination)

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. Notability demonstrated by reliable sources. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WS FTP

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists) Rationale given in PROD was: Non-notable software, no references to support the "one of the oldest" claim. Only referenced is self-published by the author. Illia Connell (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is an early FTP client, also known as Winsock FTP. I suspect that good sources could be found in computer magazines from the mid-to-late 1990s. Here is one source that discusses the subject [1] and here is another [2]. - Mr X 04:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added Network World and CNet reviews and two books as independent sources that go into some depth (1-3 pages) about the program. CNet, Network World, and Psychology Press are reliable publishers; I am not sure about the other book. There are probably plenty more treeware sources that I am unaware of. The multiple reliable sources suggest that the program is notable and that the article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks to Mark Viking for adding sources demosntrating notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources are described above. Dialectric (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2013 (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.