- 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 speedy keep. Nom withdrawn: found additinal sources and updated the article. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 12:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FreeArc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another obscure compression software. Coverage is almost identical with NanoZip; see my comment there for which sources mention this in passing. The only additional source for FreeArc is this paper, which appears to be (graduate?) student paper for a class; it's not a published peer reviewed paper. It says:
| “ | Rarely are the formats of SBC, RK, or ARC mentioned in on the mainstream internet. They have virtually no market share: this is because they simply have not gained the critical mass needed to get noticed. However, in a technical sense, they have advantages over the more popular formats of ZIP or RAR. WinRK, and another little-known program, CCM, are leaders in terms of compression ratio. But more interestingly, the more compromising SBC and FreeARC each compress both faster and more compactly than RAR. | ” |
Note that WinRK was deleted. And we don't have articles on SBC (software) or CCM (software).Pcap ping 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then restore those articles and stop tagging stuff you, apparently, know nothing about.--Zarutian (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an admin, so I cannot restore anything. FWIW, I just wrote Lossless data compression#Lossless compression benchmarks. Pcap ping 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then restore those articles and stop tagging stuff you, apparently, know nothing about.--Zarutian (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have been unable to find a file archiver under a free software license that performs better than FreeArc. FreeArc's notability is being the best performing archiver under a free software license. The day that another archiver under a free license comes along and beats FreeArc, I will find FreeArc less notable. FreeARC currently takes the top 4 spots on [1]. If you find benchmarks that include FreeArc, but where FreeArc is not in the top 3 of archivers under a free software license, please enlighten me, as I may revise my vote to merge. --Tange (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tange - a program which has been shown to be the best in its class by objective benchmarks reported in a reliable source is notable by any reasonable standard. Emily Jensen (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That class is rather meaningless to most people (I've updated the article to explain what's about), but there's enough coverage of FreeArc to close this per WP:GNG. Pcap ping 12:14, 30 April 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.