Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xftp

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xftp

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. User:David Gerard previously PRODed it with the concern " No evidence of notability as a product. All but unreferenced, both references primary. Was tagged straight after creation, no improvement." SmartSE (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely delete, as noted fails both WP:NSOFT & WP:GNG. Given sources are primary, and a look round gives the only mentions in media/articles as about Shadowpad [Example], which is an exploit that hit NetSarang software in general, with Xftp as merely part of that and a tiny mention - the reference belongs on the NetSarang page, definitely not here. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nosebagbear - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nosebagbear. Not notable. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 20:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nosebagbear - definitely not notable, couldn't find any sources/mentions except some irrelevant private blogs and file distribution sites.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2018 (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.