Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of socksifiers

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of socksifiers

[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)

Irrelevant and unencyclopedic comparison with no real notability. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_proxifiers. Not sure what the appropriate category this nomination is, leaving it set to Unknown creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socksifiers (a.k.a. proxifiers) are useful software products that, I believe, deserve this article in Wikipedia. They are used not only by home users but also by governments, universities, banks and companies of all sizes. They are notable as the type of software products. I created this article and added only popular software titles - everyone is welcome to check by themselves at Google. Comparison of socksifiers is not less relevant than, for example, Comparison of SSH clients. Socksifiers are mentioned in the technical literature (Zwicky, Elizabeth D.; Cooper, Simon; Chapman, D. Brent (2000). Building Internet Firewalls (2nd ed.). p. 235. ISBN 978-1-56592-871-8.) and, as such, are of course encyclopedic. mr565 (talk)
delete: per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
What a "nice" logic: If I need a SSH client then it's relevant and encyclopedic; if I don't need a socksifier then it's not. Think a moment about users who must use proxy to access the internet: because of their company's security policies, a secrecy regime, censorship, etc. These users want (and often have) to use different types of network clients, not all of which support proxy. For many of them a socksifier is as necessary as other more commonly used types of software. mr565 (talk)
- Nobody said that the SSH client comparison was encyclopedic (you're the only one who has mentioned it), and to be honest I'd probably support removal of that too. Also, do you have any relationship to any of the products listed on this page (particularly ProxyCap)? creffett (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, Wikipedia is not a list of links. Vectro (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomCatorce2016 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,The article does not meet notability and has weak RS. Alex-h (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable list entries. WP:NOTGUIDE and various other degrees of WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are curious who I am - I'm a sysadmin with many years of experience and an internet freedom activist. mr565 (talk)

Machines need juice and generally a CR2032. Wikipedia articles need WP:RS and WP:THREE and good arguments . Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:13, 24 May 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.