Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aria (software)


 * 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 as failing WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Aria (software)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod was removed. I am unconvinced this is notable enough and currently fails the general notability guidelines. Otterathome (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to have been recently updated, but needs a bit of polishing and sourceing work. Old Death (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not in anyway address the concerns raised.--Otterathome (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I do think indeed it might be notable enough for keeping. Also (just something that occured to me), it seems to be available in 26 languages, which is quite much. Maybe we could agree on giving the article some months more of time and reconsidering deletion at a later time? It sounds more logical to me giving the article a 'second chance' then deleting it directly. Old Death (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing establishing notability on the first few pages of Google search, CNET doesn't have anything about it. The sourceforge page says "It is being actively developed by Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa." Should qualify for A7. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (or merge with future article about aria2), and what is the problem IF "this is not notable enough"? what is the problem with that? Sorry, but I don't believe in deleting articles based ONLY on notability issues (and there is not even any policy that says that articles should be deleted due to lack of notability). As a side note, this program is in the Ubuntu repositories, so that is indication of SOME notability. Besides, there are not so many download managers for Linux (if there were many many, maybe deletion was justified to do some clean-up, but that is not the case) -- SF007 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't believe on deleting articles based on notability, maybe you're on the wrong website. The article fails WP:V+WP:OR which are policies.--Otterathome (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per policy, SF007; WP:DEL "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"  Chzz  ►  03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I still strongly think it does not make sense to delete an article based on "notability" (or lack of it). That way we end up deleting useful stuff, and we keep useless "fan-material" (pokemons/youtube_celebrities/joe_the_plumber/whatever) just because it is popular... it just does not make any sense to me. I don't care about blindy folowing rules without even thinking. SF007 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This isn't a project devoted to documenting every piece of software someone makes available for download. Notability hasn't been shown - the article actually disclaims notability, saying it is defunct. Miami33139 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not "defunct", this article is used for both Aria and Aria2, Aria2 is Aria, think of it as version 2. Aria2 redirects here, so it is not "defunct" &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  02:01, 5 June 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.