Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retroshare (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 speedy keep. Per WP:CSK#2, as the nomination was made purely to complain about the subject. All other participants voted keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retroshare

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hello!

Dear Wikipedia Page Editor Friends!

I think that the Retroshare Wiki-Page is spam and was only made for promotion. Retroshare was already nominated for deletion on Wikipedia before. Now the Retroshare Software is outdated, full of security breaches, etc.

I hope you feel the same about Retroshare! (This is the first page I ever nominated for deletion so I hope it'll work!)

Yours, Maryna Maryna Viazovska (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears notable. Your opinion of the software's quality is not a valid reason to delete. Madeline (_{part of me}) 09:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People don't just delete information about a subject (Retroshare in this case) because people think that subject is bad now. Pizzawithdirt (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator or others can update the article if they feel it has issues or lacks important information about it such as mentioned in the nomination.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are significant sources available in a simple search of google scholar and google books, not to mention google news. --Mvqr (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has multiple third-party independent sources that support notability. While the article needs improvement as indicated, it should be kept. DecorumForum125 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2022 (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.