Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinDirStat (2nd nomination)

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WinDirStat (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)

Not notable software, article already deleted twice previously. Cupids wings (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with proper citations and multiple editorial reviews along with a note on the software's widespread use. Bondrake (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's only a handful of references, most of which are on shareware/freeware download sites (i.e. not particularly reliable sources). The most significant reference listed is on the pcworld.com WWW site - where it only merits a 125 word summary. Further, the article just looks like an advert for this software; most of it's just "media reception" (aka promotional spam) ++Martin++ (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Wikipedia has already set a precedent for cataloging disk space analysis software (see Disk space analyzer) and there are far less popular disk analysis programs with less significant pages and poorer indications of notability which have not been nominated for deletion. See, e.g., SequoiaView. I have no association whatsoever with the WinDirStat authors and created the wiki page for this software because it seemed absurd for the most popular standalone disk analysis software not to have a Wikipedia page (or, for that matter, any software with more than a million users. that alone should guarantee its notability). Bondrake (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)— Cupids Wings noted (disputed below): Bondrake (talk • contribs) has made few edits outside this topic.[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Additionally, you're confusing the number of downloads with the number of users there; the two are normally dramatically different! Cupids wings (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF references points where other articles OUGHT to affect whether or not an article in question is notable or appropriate. So, referencing the fact that there are many entries for similar software along with a directory entry and noting that the standard of inclusion for other software has been lower is still relevant. Not enough to make a decision on in itself, but at least a valid point in the piece's favor. Further on the point of comparably notable software, FreeNAS is a familiar name to many, has had a Wikipedia page since 2006 (with many editors), and is the NEXT most popular software in the storage category of SourceForge after WinDirStat. Also, I'm a relatively new user, but this is by no means a single-purpose account and, as I stated above, I have no vested interest in WinDirStat or disk space analysis software in general (though I do have an interest in preserving the work I've done in cataloging some useful free, open-source software that a ton of people use). Further, the validity of arguments should be judged by their facts and not their speaker. In response to downloads vs. users: Not confusing, but you are correct. Usually download count is the closest you can get to an indication of actual use for free software though (i.e. few projects go to the effort of implementing user tracking/analysis). That said, if you reference [1], you'll see that interest in WinDirStat has been fairly constant the last few years (and is comparable to 'disk usage' generally). Given this, we can assume the weekly download count of ~15,000 to also be fairly stable and conservatively assume that at least 20 times as many people use the software as are downloading it EVERY week for the last 3 years and there are at least 1/4 million USERS. The fact that it is utility software and not "primary function" software (e.g. web browsers, content production software, etc.) will inherently limit the number of references available for it, but makes it no less notable in terms of both usage and common knowledge of its existence (even accepting that not all 2+ million downloaders are users, that doesn't limit that at least that many people thought it was interesting or useful enough to actually download and, presumably, install; far more are surely aware of it). Bondrake (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are two editorial reviews from sources I consider important. A very brief review from PCWorld is useful but maybe not significant, due to its short length. CNET's editors' review makes me take notice, because I don't see many reviews from them these days. I'm not sure whether I'd classify Gizmo's (source of this review) as reliable based on their editorial descriptions. This article currently reads as overly promotional; it needs to become more encyclopaedic. Finding additional WP:RS would help, as would deleting some of the current content. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've included another reference where WinDirStat was reviewed by a popular German magazine and included in a CD with the magazine Bondrake (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It was also a Lifehacker Download of the day (found in the first AfD debate). This plus the PCWorld and CNET reviews nudge it over the line for me. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article establishes notability with adequate references although this was not the case at the time the AFD was instigated. In this case the media reception seems required as part of establishing notability. Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists makes it clear that "otherstuffexists" may be a perfectly vaid argument for keeping an article but warns that (unfortunately in my view) the argument may not be appealing to some editors.Thincat (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As others already pointed out, I think that the article now has enough sources to establish notability. Svick (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above, I also found a few more sources and added them. There are also numerous sources in other languages that may also be useful but someone more familiar in this subject area will have to weight the cost-benefit analysis of the energy of translating and if they are even needed here. Also I didn't add any of the Google Scholar Ghits which likely will help exponentially but unless there is a major issue it likely is best for someone working through all the sourcing to determine what best serves the article rather than just serving a rescue from AfD. -- Banjeboi 12:58, 13 March 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.