Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core FTP


 * 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. The advertising content has been removed & external coverage has been added. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Core FTP

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

FTP client software. No indication of notability whatsoever. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added two reviews as references (which should demonstrate notability) and tagged the article as Software-stub. --Eastmain (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not written like adcopy, easy to find notable sources online - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Covered in at least two reliable third-party sources (per Eastmain), I'd say that's good enough for a keep. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Article has no content beyond advertising the product. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: It gives the price, and it tells you how to buy.  It is, in short and sum, an ad.  The product doesn't seem to be above or beyond other FTP clients.  I'm sure it's good, and if ftp were still a core activity on the Internet, I might look into it, but this is an ad, and Wikipedia does not allow advertising.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That information has since been deleted. The article no longer looks like an ad, IMO. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and now it has no content. How's that encyclopedic? If there's nothing verifiable and notable to say about this product, why is it here? That's what's behind my delete Travellingcari (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * delete there are only two lines on this page. Gman124 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it may not be written like an ad copy, but that's what it is. It's to sell the product, not talk about why it's encyclopedic. I didn't find anything in the references to indicate its notability either. Travellingcari (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hello, I'm trying to replace our wikipedia page that was maliciously deleted (likely by a competitor). I'm new to the whole wikipedia process and apologise for any mistakes I have made.  I will do my best to restore the page to whomever wrote the original page which was much more complete. --phillipsc (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Articles are deleted by administrators, not your "competitors". This is a very serious charge of conflict of interest you are raising against . Do you have any evidence? According to the log, the article had "no indication of notability whatsoever". What evidence of notability was supplied in the Wikipedia article on your company, which by the way, is not "yours"? --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Again my apologies if I've done something wrong.  I did not mean to accuse any one individual of malice, but rather I found it disturbing that out of several clients listed on the Comparison of FTP clients page,  The Core FTP link was chosen to be removed (out of 50,60 or more clients).  A majority of clients on that page don't have at least 5 million downloads and/or have been discontinued or don't have a significant presence in the FTP arena.  Not only did someone remove the Core FTP client page, but they went through the trouble of removing it from the FTP client comparison page.   I hope you can understand my frustration.  --phillipsc | Talk 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Then I hope you will understand OUR frustration in handling articles that do not have appropriate references. We don't care about whether there are other articles of dubious sourcing or how many downloads; we care whether we have sources that verify the notability of the program according to our pre-existing standards. We don't really check the rest of the category to see if we're being fair. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. Needed for balance of comparison with comparable software. Snowman (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks context to establish its claim as notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Snowman, an article does not arrive at notability for the sake of providing readers with comparisons to other software products; Wikipedia is not a product review; we are not Consumer Reports.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2008 (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.