Talk:Portable Tor

Speedy Deletion

This article is named as to conflate this software with Tor (software), fails to meet notability, is poorly written, and would need a complete rewrite and sourcing to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I have nominated it for deletion.♥GlamRock♥ 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This was immediately declined because someone thinks that this is not promotional. That is not the only thing wrong with this article. I don't see how a completely unsourced article that contains a large amount of plagiarized and demonstrably false information written by the person responsible for distributing this defunct and never-notable software repackaging could be "informative." 88.75.127.199 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Outdated

This is terribly outdated and the Tor Project provides something like that themselves: The Tor Browser Bundle (https://www.torproject.org/download.html.en). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.223.26 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tor seems to recommend the Tor Browser Bundle (which is portable) instead of Portable Tor. This article should probably be redirected to the Tor article. --Hm2k (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because it doesn't matter the website 403s, the program still exists. --186.59.140.182 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No Sources

There are no sources, so this will be up for deletion soon. I hear that the people who made the program also tried to force users to pay them to use the free software they based Tor Portable on.114.165.26.69 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge and redirect

Any reason why this shouldn't be merged and redirected into Tor itself? Unless it's not notable at all? czar · · 00:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely not notable at all. 92.78.157.174 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Untruth. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, merge will be a good idea. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge or delete. That it is separate software and that it exists isn't enough for an article, but even if there were sources it's not notable enough to stand on its own. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else want to comment? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, let's start the process. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)