Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publius Publishing System

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. Seems like Alsee's sources have gone uncontested, although Unscintillating's issues will need resolution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Publishing System (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)

The issues listed (orphan, update) suggest a lack of notability; also Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; also secondary sources; also does this still even exist? CapnZapp (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. Highly Notable project in the development history of internet technology. Historic developments regarding distributed systems, cryptography, anonymity, tamper-proof content, free-speech, and related legal implications.
  • New York Times Divided Data Can Elude the Censor[1]
  • Scientific American Speech without accountability[2]
  • Scientific American How Publius Thwarts Censors[3]
  • Association for Computing Machinery Technical Report Fault-Tolerant Distributed Information Retrieval for Publius Servers and Mobile Peers[4]
  • citeseerx.ist.psu.edu search returns 1001 hits for papers mentioning "Publius", most of which are valid hits, and many of those papers themselves are cited by hundreds of papers.[5]
  • Annual Internet Law Institute, Volume 1[6]
  • Many books, such as 'Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies [7]
  • Google Book search for Publius+distributed+internet+peer returns 1810 hits.[8]
  • The Publius home page[9] has (mostly dead) links to articles in The Industry Standard(9/13/2000), The Industry Standard (8/21/2000), eWeek, Yahoo News, Washington Post, CNET News 8/7/2000,CNET News 6/30/2000, Associated Press. Those count for Notability, and can be retrieved either in paper form or probably on Internet Archive sites. Alsee (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per citations provided by Alsee above. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  Article is unsourced, and the first sentence contains BLP violations.  The search on Google books returns the first link as a book with Wikipedia articles.  The next link, and only link with bold, references "AT&T's Publius publishing system", where "AT&T" does not appear in this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  The article has been moved since the time of the nomination, and is now at Publius (publishing system).  Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2016 (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.