- 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. Tone 15:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeflOpt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I use this tool extensively for editing Wikipedia (file compression). Perhaps that doesn't really show notability, but I'd hate to see this go, that's all. Noir (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think it's noteworthy as a general tool for improving compression in files like zip and png, the latter making it of particular interest to Wikipedians uploading such images. It's mentioned briefly on various blogs, but that said, the only real sources of information about the program are in forum posts, or on the web site and the text file provided in the download. Most of it comes directly from the author. CountingPine (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not noteworthy for Wikipedia with how the article is now. Joe Chill (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is the problem, and not the subject, then I think it's better to keep it, classified as a stub. CountingPine (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is the problem. Even stubs have to be notable. Joe Chill (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is the problem, and not the subject, then I think it's better to keep it, classified as a stub. CountingPine (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not noteworthy for Wikipedia with how the article is now. Joe Chill (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it may be a good bit of software but without coverage in reliable sources, it fails to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Significant coverage in reliable sources neither claimed nor found with good faith search. Bongomatic 03:05, 18 August 2009 (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.