Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I2Pd

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. I personally think it might be notable, but there are still not enough reliable sources to prove it. I suggest re-creation in Draft space when there are, but not until then. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I2Pd

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

Inadequately-sourced article about software. The two sources cited in the article seem to fail WP:RS. No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 21:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, unfortunately.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:RS. Ireneshih (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've been asked to reopen this discussion after having closed it, so that further arguments may be put forward. In particular, please consider sources that were added to the article since the nomination was made. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, around 10% of the I2P network uses i2pd and keeps growing, I believe it is an "applicable notability" meaning 1000+ routers. Ireneshih, unfortunately most of the information is located inside I2P, and can be considred as "reliable source" due the nature of this darknet. However last reference is an academic magazine mentioning EdDSA in i2pd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I2porignal (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't verify I2porignal's claim of 10% of I2P network using I2Pd, neither can I find any sources mentioning i2pd except the Russian blogs referenced in the article. Publishing the code on github does not warrant a stand-alone article. A selective merge to main article I2P would be an option if there were any reliable source. Harsh (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh, the only way to verify this statement is to run an I2P floodfill and collect some stats, e.g. you must do it inside I2P. You can's find any sources mentioning i2pd? Let me help. Try to search "#i2pd" in twitter, you will find a lot. Go to I2P main page, "Privacy solutions" section, it's there for a long time. "Except Russian blogs" sounds discriminating, doesn't it? Please, don't merge to the main I2P article, because it's completely different and independent project, delete it instead. Let's wait until it will take more that 50% of the network and I hope you and other guys will fill ashamed for statements like "Publishing the code on github does not warrant a stand-alone article" for the prject that exists more than 2 years and has a lot of customers including business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I2porignal (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely sorry if my comment was offending. The point I made was, blogs aren't considered a reliable source. Please understand that, as editors, we are only required to assess whether an article meets the given standard criteria. Since Wikipedia does't have a specific and detailed notability policy on software/applications except WP:WEB , the general guidelines serve as an outline for the purpose. Even if the outcome of the AfD isn't favorable, you can ask for moving the article to your userspace and you can re submit it in the future, if you think it meets notability. Harsh (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2016 (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.

I2pd is a nice software, trusted by many users, free software. It should not be merged with i2p, i2p is Java based, more stable but slower, i2pd is C++. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:24FC:2:BDE8:D209:FA8F:1429 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]