Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lsh (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 no consensus. Sandstein 23:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lsh

[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)

Doesn't seem to meet general notability guideline, and development seems to have ended years ago, so no prospect of "becoming" notable. Closeapple (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per own nomination: If I remember, lsh was mildly popular for a very brief period as a testing implementation for the then-shiny-and-new version 2 of the SSH protocol, but was quickly overtaken by other SSH programs instead. This article was kept by an AfD in 2010, but the reason isn't really clear from the AfD and the arguments made in 2010 don't seem to match current standards for significant coverage (i.e. more than a passing mention in independent third-party sources). If there is significant coverage somewhere else now, speak now, because the books currently listed in the article don't get it done:
- Lasser (2000), ISBN 9780789723765, p. 104: only mention is "One project is producing a tool, lsh, which interoperates with version 2 of SSH."
- Smith (2005), ISBN 9780596007584, p. 227: only mention is "lsh: For GPL fans, lsh is an SSH implementation under that license. You can learn more at" (URL given)
- Yaghmour (2003), ISBN 9780596002220, p. 300: I didn't find an image of this book page to verify. (I didn't look very hard though.)
--Closeapple (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not fleeting. That the project is no longer worked on does not mean it has lost its notability any more than OpenOffice.org has lost its notability just because it has transferred the project to a different owner and is no longer being worked on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above—no significant coverage has been identified. Changing vote to no opinion per new sources located. However, I note that self-published websites and unpublished papers are not considered RS and cannot be used to determine notability. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It's old, but has coverage. [1] [2][3][4]-- dsprc ^[talk] 23:07, 10 January 2019 (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.