- 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 suggests available sourcing doesn't rise to WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT. j⚛e deckertalk 21:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FreeCommander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not have any reliable independent sources. Cannot meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I added 5 references from the first page of Google News search (see link above). All of these are attributed to respected and reliable sources (though none is in English and Žive.cz is a Czech version of Slovak youth-oriented news media to my knowledge), and four of them may be used for WP:GNG purposes. (The fifth one is a download site with editor's review; it is a primary source, so it isn't usable for GNG purposes, but it is comprehensive and thus usable for verification of content.) I didn't search further as these reference seem to be enough for establishing notability of this software. That said, an article is in very poor state, so it probably should be rewritten, which is a problem that can be addressed with editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added 2 more references, this time in English. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm just not convinced the references provide "significant coverage" of the subject. One is a how-to guide from which we can't really get a lot of value (see WP:NOTHOWTO). It's not coverage of the subject, it's a guide for how to use the subject - that's not really the same thing. I couldn't cite a street-sign as contributing to the notability of the street it is on, just because it tells me how to use it. Others are download points, some with a brief explanation of how the product should be used. Again, very "how-to" - not "significant coverage" that objectively reviews the software. Though it is a user essay, not a policy, WP:NSOFT gives some idea of what the Wikipedia community might expect to see for notable software. Whether you apply NSOFT or WP:GNG, I don't think, on balance, it passes either. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The only links which are not download points are [1] [2], with little coverage. It has a couple of book mentions [3] [4] but with hardly any details. I think it's pretty obscure software. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2012 (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.