Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinuxDC++
Most criticisms of  that I've seen involve it being too inclusive (especially the free-software clause).  Yet you seem to be using its still-tentative status as a justification for being even ''more'' inclusive.  In the absence of more specific guidelines, the general guideline that prevails in AfDs is non-trivial coverage by multiple |reliable sources.  If you're going to ignore  (which, while somewhat controversial in parts, is usually well-received in AfD discussions), you should be providing more standard evidence of notability, not just saying, effectively, "keep 'cause I think it should be kept
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:SOFTWARE (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)