Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer Collection

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SoftwareDev (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 14 February 2009 (→Internet Explorer Collection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Internet Explorer Collection

Internet Explorer Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unofficial (and possibly copyright violating) installer for IE. Blowdart | talk 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. (Personally I don't think the copyright thing holds much weight, at least for the earlier versions. If you don't plan on selling or supporting a piece of software, you can't expect to control it). - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
aside Copyright doesn't work like that you know. Otherwise you'd have fun with GPL software too, that's not sold, but generally is copyrighted. --Blowdart | talk 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(rant) True, I know it doesn't work like that. At least with the GPL, it's actually accessible and copyright is commonly in use by people selling their work. I just can't stand companies grabbing copyright and not actually using it. Take Viacom for example: they continually hassle YouTube to take down videos of material they supposedly own. But there are several programs that would be lost forever if no one put them online (as a Wikipedian I abhor the loss of verifiable information in any fashion). If Viacom were to release videos or DVDs themselves they could actually make money of the fans rather than annoy them.
aside Ah but Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.. The Pirate Bay doesn't host works, only links :) --Blowdart | talk 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because it's listed (as Freeware, just like Internet Explorer itself) on all major software web-sites (BetaNews, Softpedia, Brothersoft, etc.) and on tons of blogs. Another reason to keep the article is because Internet Explorer Collection is very special: it's the only installer which can make stand-alone IE versions run on newer Operating Systems like Windows Vista and Windows 7. Finally the article has a lot of nice links to other relevant Wikipedia articles. - Peter356 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the lack of reliable independent sources. Whether the software itself is a copyright violation or not (IANAL) doesn't matter for the purpose of notability though (see for example Category:Unauthorized video games) as long as the external links are removed, which I see has already been done. BryanG (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the article because nowhere else on Wikipedia is written that IE isn't that integrated in Windows as Microsoft says it is, and as far as I know there is no other way to use IE8 standalone, nor was it possible before to use older IE versions in Windows Vista and 7. Also I'm not aware of any other which has Conditional Comments, User Agent and Version Numbers all correct in every version. I think it's really important that at least the information that it is possible stays on Wikipedia. Otherwise only Microsoft's narrow "it's not possible, period" view would be on Wikipedia and I think that's a bad thing. Also, there are a lot of other software articles like this one, which all still exist. I'm open for discussion about improving the article. I (or someone else) can edit the article to address any concern. - IECollection (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and promotion. IECollection is factually wrong on several points, but I will address that on his talk page rather than here. WillOakland (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've rolled back the last edit by Wpu09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which changed WillOakland's comments. --Blowdart | talk 10:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I didn't change WillOakland's comment's, but I removed them because 1. WillOakland was banned before and 2. he states that "it's" wrong on several points, without giving an explanation or reason anywhere. - Wpu09 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment removing legitimate votes is vandalism, pure and simple. And he did indeed provide an explanation as he said he was going to. --Blowdart | talk 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve/extend the article where needed. Deleting the article would not only remove the mention of a popular tool for web developers from Wikipedia, but also a point of view, which I don't think is a good idea. - SoftwareDev (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who claim that IE is not an integral part of Windows are not expressing a point of view. They're displaying ignorance (or wishful thinking). In any case, "It's cool" and "It's useful" are not recognized reasons to keep a software article. WillOakland (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note But Internet Explorer Collection works, so it proves that IE is not that integrated in Windows that it's impossible to run on a totally different version of Windows then the IE version was made for. This has nothing to do with ignorance, nor with wishful thinking. Further I never said "It's cool", etc. In case you really do know something we don't know then please go improve the article.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_Explorer_Collection&oldid=270569915"