Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashFXP


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Monty  845  04:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FlashFXP

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found nothing to show notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no evidence of how this FTP client is notable, fails WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 02:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep I'm seeing scores of hits in the Google Books search, sometimes as the sole FTP client that the author recommends, stretching back over the last decade and appearing in things like a Russian "Encyclopedia of the Internet" in 2004. It's in our Comparison of FTP client software.  The Google News search is filled with spam for some reason but if you sift through you can find things like this 2004 article from 01net.com, this 2011 review from Personal Computer Magazine, etc.  I had never heard of it either, probably because I would never pay for an FTP client and I use SSH mostly anyways, but I don't understand why you guys are having difficulty finding evidence of notability.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is enough to show notability. SL93 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you add some real info (in English) from these sources? Right now, the article reads like an advertisement. It's got a feature list, some claims about future versions (see WP:CRYSTAL #5), and a completely unsourced history, which sounds like more ad copy. If there's no published info about what makes FlashFXP notable, then we don't have content to summarize to make an article (WP:WHYN). Being referred to in another Wikipedia article is not a basis for notability. So far, we have enough info to justify a redirect to Comparison of FTP client software. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup, but you're welcome to work on the article yourself. There is definitely published info about what makes FlashFXP notable: I just linked to reviews of it and English sources are not required, just preferred.  But as I said there were some book authors who had FlashFXP as their sole recommended FTP client, so I'm sure that applying a little elbow grease will turn up the sorts of sources you prefer. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 11:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG per:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:49, 26 May 2012 (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.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:49, 26 May 2012 (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.