Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burn4Free

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Burn4Free
Advertisement. 213.93.227.195 02:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Traffic Rank for burn4free.com: 66,350 (down2,240) Speed: Very Slow, Avg Load Time: 6.2 Seconds Other sites that link to this site: 90 Popups: Many (23% of sessions have popups) Online Since: 23-Aug-2002 This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep rewrite and expand. Burn4Free shows up 182,000 hits on Google. Megan1967 02:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete those hits are only download pages, nothing like the GIMP about which there is actual information, or Ahead Nero, a hugely more famous CD burning tool, of which there is no wiki page, but which "boasts" nearly 800,000 google hits. 213.93.227.195 03:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Under current VfD rules, votes by anonymous users are not counted. Megan1967 04:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh well, don't count me then. I'm only trying to improve wikipedia (a little). Just look at the other 'contributions' the poster of the article has made: LXer, Ultra Browser, GnomeBaker and more of that kind of 'information'. 213.93.227.195 04:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is bad faith votes that are not counted. Anonymity simply adds weight to bad faith.  It is not evidence of bad faith per se.  Anonymous users make hundreds of good faith contributions to Wikipedia every day.  And to me what is written above seems to be one of them. Uncle G 15:20, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Not a vote It seems teh other burning tool is called Nero Burning ROM in the wikipedia, my bad. Still I think the google test is a bit lame when it comes to relevance. 213.93.227.195 03:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The author added this to the article, which I have removed: This page is not an advertisement because there are alot of pages about pieces of software. Such as Microsoft Windows, GIMP, Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, OSX, K3B and more. I think this page should be kept. Wolfman 03:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Right now, the article basically serves as a link to an external site. If expanded somewhat by end of vfd, I support keeping.  If not, ditch it. Wolfman 03:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Alexa stats for www.burn4free.com;
 * I don't know if this is evidence of noteability, but even IF it is, if no expansion past a single sentence and no edits for by end of VfD, Delete. --Dbroadwell 04:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blindwrite is much more notable and doesn't have an article. I personally think that articles on the Wikipedia should only be about software which truly makes a difference, such as Photoshop, Corel Draw, Paint Shop Pro, Mozilla Firefox, OpenOffice.org and so on. Sn0wflake 04:16, 2005 Feb 16 (according to history Uncle G 15:20, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC))
 * Delete. Ad. Trilobite (Talk) 14:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ad for one of many similar apps. Wyss 20:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep What's wrong with you people? All I did was make an article on a popular CD burning tool. The thing has got tons of Google hits and I see alot of other software on Wikipedia that you guys don't want to delete. Why single out this one?
 * Comment by BWF89 --InShaneee 22:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey there BWF89, how do you do? It's sad that your first article has fallen right into the VfD, but don't worry, it's nothing personal. Sooner or later you will get what is generally considered notable and what is considered non-notable around these parts. There are different criterias for different areas. It can be confusing at times. But basically, when it comes to software, everything that isn't quite notable is considered advertising. Since we are on the internet, that happens quite frequently, so a more rigid criteria has to be adopted on these instances. If you feel that a certain article about a software isn't notable enough to be on the Wikipedia and you have some degree of proof to back you up, you can nominate it and we will vote on it on the same manner. Don't feel discouraged. --Sn0wflake 01:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not-worthy to keep --Neigel von Teighen 22:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 22:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We just need to see more notable references than that. Zzyzx11 00:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, But add to CD Burning page as an example -- notable, but not enough for its own article
 * The CD burner page has only one example: Nero burning ROM, and it's an internal link. 213.93.227.195 15:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable. Someone thinking of buying it might look it up on Wikipedia. Expand though. Howabout1 04:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. notable software. --Haham hanuka 08:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory of all of the software packages in the world, any more than it is a directory of all of the people/companies/bands/websites/films/actors/writers/schools/clubs in the world. If this were about a person, I'd vote Userfy, unless that user already had their own, perfectly good, user page.  Since it is about a software package, and since the software package has its own, perfecly good, home page, I vote Delete.  Also note that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service or an advertising billboard. Uncle G 11:28, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)