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. No comment on PeerGuardian, as that is an editing issue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeerBlock[edit]

PeerBlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I see nothing to indicate that this is a notable product. Miami33139 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) – (contribs)[reply]

With over 1,000,000 downloads in under a year I would say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.119.216 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Advertising. "Phoenix Labs, the developer of PeerGuardian (project now ended), encourages current PeerGuardian users to migrate to PeerBlock." Quack quack. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple google news results, including those that point out that it was used by the Gizmodo reader to reveal organizations that downloaded the torrent of facebook public data. Although it seems just notable enough to justify a stand-alone article, WP:BEFORE probably would have encouraged proposing that the page be redirected to the notable PeerGuardian and that sourced content be merged there. --Karnesky (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Karnesky (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge with PeerGuardian and redirect PeerGuardian to this page. – RossJ81 ^Talk/_Cont 15:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because:

1. Nomination fails WP:FAILN: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." and "Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.", "Put the ((Notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors.";
2. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE and WP:AFD#Notifying interested people;
3. Subject passes WP:N ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Merge with PeerGuardian and redirect PeerGuardian to this page. – Vituperex 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merging articles from two different development stables is appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (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.