Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACDSee


 * 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   Snowball keep Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ACDSee

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deprodded with explanation: "seems like a case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT". Well, I actually used it in the past, but cannot find enough coverage by reliable sources. M4gnum0n (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —M4gnum0n (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Must Keep: This is a historically very popular program.  Google news searches tosses out lots of pay and non-pay cite possibilities.pcworld, PC world review in Washington Post, mobile version review for zdnet, 1998 review in st. pete times, etc, etc. --Milowent (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A well known and widely used program... the article could use some work (expansion, refimprove, cleanup the slightly more spammy bits), but should not be deleted... Milowent has also shown reliable verifiability... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Milowent, there are ample sources available in the non-trivial/reliable category. JBsupreme (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep As above. GameOn (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Fairly popular piece of software -Drdisque (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Milowent. --  Dspradau   → talk   16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep! as per Milowent; it's well-known software which has likely gained considerable competition over it's years but it's still around as far as I know, and like Milowent said, it's covered in many verifiable sources! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This sort of software has a fairly wide user base, and the references uncovered above show that it meets current notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.