Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DC++

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. Nominator replied that provided sources establish notability. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DC++[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Sources are either primary (published by DC++ developers directly), blog, interview (partial to the subject), or guides. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @NemesisAT:. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources in Russian might provide third-party commentary on DC++ and therefore might help establish notability. However, they are in Russian and I can't determine their quality. https://habr.com/ru/search/?target_type=posts&order=relevance&q=%5BDC%2B%2B%5D Anton.bersh (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has existed since 2004. The nominator seems to, at least in part, use the current state of the article as an argument for deletion, which isn't a good argument. Geschichte (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this sounds like a WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument. I remember this software back in 2004 and I would imagine there's content out there with a WP:BEFORE search. – The Grid (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to these sources? I looked for sources, but I only found the dubious material in Russian (linked above). Also, Wikipedia:But there must be sources! is not a valid argument. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm looking up sources and I'm seeing it's limited. I'm sorry for my earlier comment, I didn't realize the article also includes tables of forks of the article which is barely relatable. – The Grid (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There must've been articles in paper computer magazines. It was used on LAN parties a lot. Ondertitel (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On online search gives decent sources to establish notability.

Academic papers: Direct Connect: Evaluation of a filesharing application (2005), DC++ and DDOS Attacks (2007), Analyzing The DC File Sharing Network (2009), Design and Implementation of a extensible Peer–to–Peer Content Recommendation System (2010)
Books: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123742148/p2p-networking-and-applications https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22direct+connect%22+%22hub%22+-wikipedia+-amazon or "DC++" "direct connect" -wikipedia
Thesis: Measurement and Analysis of the Direct Connect Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Network (2009), Peer Selection in Direct Connect (2013), Biased Random Periodic Switching in Direct Connect (2014)
News: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2007/05/peer-to-peer-app-hijacked-for-denial-of-service-attacks/
https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/23/p2p_networks_hijacked_for_ddos_attacks.html cited in https://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse571-07/ftp/p2p.pdf
https://www.theregister.com/2007/05/30/p2p_dos_attacks/ Ondertitel (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I think these sources establish notability. I'll try to incorporate them into the article this week. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2021 (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.