Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1stChoice FTPPro

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. Consensus overall points to delete Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 12:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FTPPro

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating page for 69.181.249.92, nomination is as follows: PROD removed by article creator. Fails WP:NOTE in that it doesn't have significant coverage. Both the CNET and Tucows listings are taken from the publisher's site, as CNET freely admits. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 18:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "1st choice ftppro" retrieves hundreds of websites that have reviewed this program during the past 15 years. This should meet the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources". GoodTeacher7 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Goggle returns thousands of hits, but nothing really qualify WP:RS. Google News Archives doesn't even show anything. Download sites did mention this software, but they are not really secondary sources.—Chris!_c/t 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to an independent review at toggle.com. Notwithstanding the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, this program has the same notability as most of the other programs listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP_clients GoodTeacher7 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

btw: The debate process on this page will be an excellent example for my social studies students. GoodTeacher7 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes toggle.com a reliable source? It looks like a freely editable wiki, and those aren't acceptable. Hut 8.5 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added another reference to an independent review, from ntchosting.com. This article now contains more references than most of the programs listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP_clients, so I believe that this program qualifies for inclusion in that list. GoodTeacher7 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I hate to axe a 15-year-old piece of software, there is simply no evidence that this program comes anywhere near to meeting the general notability guideline. The CNET and Tucows reviews are just a "publisher's description", the Toggle entry is just another Wiki, and the NTC Hosting source (which would unlikely be deemed a reliable source) erroneously refers to the program as being open source. Moreover, it is seemingly impossible to even find a full resolution screenshot of the program, which would be very odd of any notable software piece. Personally, I find the developer's website interesting relative to the industry as a whole, but the facts are what they are. — C M B J 19:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable sources referring to the software and I can only find 18 pages linking to it. Pburka (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To not include FTPPro in a list of FTP Clients is absolutely ludicrous. None of the 'Delete' voters have responded to the argument that FTPPro contains more notability than many of the entries in the FTP_clients article that have not been flagged for having "no indication of notability". The previous poster appears to be biased, since the "link:" prefix at google is inaccurate, and googling "1st choice ftppro" actually retrieves hundreds of webpages with links to ftppro.com and ftppro.org. I noticed that 69.181.249.92 has just flagged most of the entries in the FTP_clients article for having "no indication of notability". Seems like he's getting rather delete-happy (for someone who didn't even create a username for himself). Today he's marked about 100 articles (many of which have existed for years) for deletion. This completely defeats the purpose of allowing users to compare all the products that are available, and will insult many people in the programming community. The "Comparison of FTP client software" article was previously a very useful article. Now, it will only contain products that are endorsed by Wikipedia editors. Seems like bias to me. Christinebentenflas (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) — Christinebentenflas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument to use in a deletion discussion. You've already commented on my response to that argument, in a very personal attack manner . 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I can't find anything that comes close to the notability guidelines. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. FTPPro is used by a lot of people, including more than 20,000 members of the Business Search Directory at http://www.BusinessSearchIndex.com. The top right corner of every Business Search Directory profile states that each profile is "Uploaded by 1st Choice FTPPro". You can also see a Version History for FTPPro at Softpile.com, which lists all the FTPPro updates that were released from 2004-2009: http://www.softpile.com/apphistory/1st_choice_ftppro.html. This update list is published by Softpile, and not by the software publisher (it is not a wiki).JacobTheKing (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC) — JacobTheKing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Being used by a large number of people doesn't automatically make the software notable unless its use is covered extensively by third party sources.—Chris!_c/t 02:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: One or more participants in this discussion are the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, in which positive CheckUser results were discovered. — C M B J 03:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only surprise in that SPI is the uncovering of the sockmaster account, Ftppro (talk · contribs). Didn't see that one coming. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agh! I forgot to mention him. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have edited the article to indicate that this software has been covered by the following third party sources. These websites do not contain submit buttons, so the publisher could not have submitted the software themself:

http://www.brothersoft.com/1st-choice-ftppro-1210.html Includes screenshot created by brothersoft.com. http://www.archive.org/details/tucows_195116_1st_Choice_FTPPro Includes screenshot created by archive.org, and indicates that this software is in the Internet Archive for "long term preservation and access". http://fliiby.com/file/7209/rzv0elrobt.html Indicates the information was "provided by fliiby", not by the sofware publisher. http://www.softpile.com/apphistory/1st_choice_ftppro.html Version history created by Softpile.com, not by the software publisher. SisterMaryCatherine (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC) — SisterMaryCatherine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm sorry, but these sites don't cut it. Pictures are generally not used as sources; we need the full hard text explaining what this is. And in something more reliable than your so-called "3rd party sources"; preferably the LA Times or something notable. These barely provide any information relevant to the article that would merit inclusion. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2010 (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.