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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floppyfw[edit]

Floppyfw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This articles fails WP:N WP:V & WP:RS and has been flagged since 2008 with no addition information. This page has been recommended to be merged, but content here does not warrant a merge with another page, but only in lists Hagennos (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom for failing WP:N WP:V & WP:RS. Plus, the article is written like an advertisement. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't accept that snow close of this article is at all appropriate, nor was the NOM's original speedy delete idea, which was declined. ((It's akin to stamping on insects because you don't know what they are, and can't be bothered to find out) Did no-one read WP:BEFORE, or act on it? Originally, this began as just a comment, but I've added two fairly detailed secondary review articles that shows it meets WP:V and WP:RS, plus a more detailed independent paper which comes out in its favour. And it has mentions in quite a few "What links here?" pages, though often through incorporation in templates. So rushing to delete is not appropriate. The question is: does it meet WP:NSOFTWARE? Having done the investigation into a field I admittedly know absolutely nothing about, I think it does. viz. "It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability." I think it just gets there. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- A Firewall on a floppy disk? Even in the year 2000 that would have sounded like a bad idea (maybe in 1995 it would have been okay) But seriously the sources for this are really poor.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why a firewall on a floppy disk should be such a bad idea. The only difference between that and any other delivery method is the limitation to 1.44 MB, and that is far more than is needed to provide the necessary functionality for a secure firewall. The only thing that has happened since 1995 is the increase in bloat, not any actual requirement for increased program size. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The references section clearly establishes significant coverage of the software across a variety of sources, and I think most of the references are from acceptable sources. Also, I know Rusf10 was joking, but just in case anyone is in any doubt - there is no policy that says Wikipedia has to only cover "good" software, whatever that might mean.--greenrd (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- This is promotional content. Jeff Quinn (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per the other keep reasons but also when did a lack of additional information being added become a suitable reason for deletion? EvilxFish (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Due to improvements made to the article since the start of this AFD. It would be a stretch to call this software notable since coverage is limited to techie websites, however the sources given are enough to verify the information. Mattg82 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2017 (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.