Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WxDownload Fast (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. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WxDownload Fast (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)

This non-notable software has no third party sources and search for sources does not reveal any significant. Three sources listed are about libraries and features that this software implemented, but they never mention this software. Source search shows there are user submitted comments, version announcements, one sentence mentions, and appearance in lists. These are not acceptable RS for notability in any language. Miami33139 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Miami33139 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Covered in Free Software Magazine issue 16 [1] but fairly briefly and similarly so in a round-up of download managers [2] in the tech column of Mladá fronta DNES (a mainstream newspaper in Czech republic). Was also reviewed in a similar roundup in issue 108 of Linux Format (toc; full text requires subscription) I'm ignoring the dubious review on software.informer.com--a site with unclear editorial policy or even a list of the staff. Pcap ping 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Open source software. Samboy (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is irrelevant to notability (as would something being proprietary software). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Pcap. Joe Chill (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per various editors. LotLE×talk 20:38, 9 January 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.