Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Download Manager


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Free Download Manager

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources and no claim of notability.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. A WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up any significant coverage. Laplorfill (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's one of the most popular software while coming to download management and Torrent support. Best thing is, it's an open-source application and freeware, which simply allows user to download files from the internet without spending a single penny compared to the other software, for which the developers charge for overcoming the limitations of their softwares (trial applications). Utkarsh Nayan Gupta (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2021 (IST)
 * Question: Do you have any reliable sources that show this is true? Laplorfill (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Answer: Yes, currently I have 4 major reliable sources and still collecting! Sources: 1, 2, 3 & 4 Utkarsh Nayan Gupta (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2021 (IST)
 * @: Please don't WP:CITEBOMB with rubbish, your first source was a primary reference which blows your credibility to pieces. The Techradar review was credible.  Please read WP:THREE and remember peoples will only look at your first 3 links so make them the very best satisfaction  of WP:RS.  And raw links are a complete pain so please give full citations ... I really abhor being made to work looking these up.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That said you've arguably pretty well disproved the nomination statement already by the badgering nom. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete all sources are either from self published website/forums or download repositories/playstore with no indication of notablity.Ratnahastintalk 07:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NSOFT. The subject has been covered in several popular magazines. While the coverage is not usually super in-depth, many can be construed as reliable reviews, and there is at least some evidence of significant coverage.


 * Farwell, Jennifer. "Free Download Manager." Smart Computing in Plain English; Lincoln Vol. 21, Iss. 1, (Jan 2010): 25.
 * Prince, Brian. "Apple Mum About Aug. 7 Event; Apple-watchers speculate the company will be introducing a redesigned iMac desktop." eWeek. New York (Aug 1, 2007): 1.
 * Waddilove, Roland. "Do You Need A Download Manager?" Micro Mart; London Iss. 1352, (Mar 5 – Mar 11, 2015): 66–69.
 * Free Download Manager review. TechRadar. 15 May 2017.
 * "THE BEST FREE DOWNLOAD MANAGER 2017." Windows Help & Advice 2017: 88–89.
 * Stapley, Will. "CREATE YOUR OWN... Windows 11." Computer Act!ve; London Iss. 544, (Jan 4 – Jan 15, 2019): 50–57.
 * Stapley, Will. "Organise & Manage Your Downloads." Computer Act!ve; London Iss. 559, (Jul 31 – Aug 13, 2019): 62–63.
 * Stapley, Will. "Best Free Software." Computer Act!ve; London Iss. 584, (Jul 15 – Jul 28, 2020): 18–19.


 * Yasin, Muhammad, Muhammad Arif Wahla, and Firdous Kausar. "Analysis of Free Download Manager for Forensic Artefacts." Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime. Vol. 31. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 59–68. Available: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.686.1449&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 * Pradono, K A et al. "Development of Automatic Landsat Data Download Engine". IOP Conference Series. Materials Science and Engineering. Vol. 1007. IOP Publishing, 2020. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/1007/1/012109

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Pradono, K A et al. is peer-reviewed. Yasin et al. is a conference paper that is not peer-reviewed, but it's a included as chapter in a book published by Springer, which is very reputable publisher. I don't have access to Farwell's review in full-text, but according to metadata it's definitely a product review. Politrukki (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Replaced Springer link above with psu.edu link because the former is behind paywall. Politrukki (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. My deletion argument is basically everything Ratnahastin said, though if there are indeed many notable and credible sources about this, perhaps add them to the article. AdoTang (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * to establish notability, it's enough that reliable sources have sufficiently "noted" the subject. They don't need to be cited in the article. If one for example uses ProQuest search to find sources about "Free Download Manager" (in quotes), they will find many sources about the subject. Mainly popular magazine or newspaper articles. Many of them only include a passing mention of FDM, and hence they cannot be used to establish notability. That doesn't mean they can't be used for writing content in the article.I think Ratnahastin's argument (that you lent) is invalid because it's based on assumption that no reliable sources have covered the subject, even though in the above discussion the reliability of TechRadar was not disputed. Initially, TechRadar was the only source I found about the subject and I would have supported deletion had it been the only source. Politrukki (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The notability is established with the articles linked or named above. – K4rolB (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Claims of notable achievements are not supported by WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The abstract notes: "Free Download Manager (FDM) is one of the most popular download managers due to its free availability, high download speed and versatility. It contains a lot of information that is of potential evidentiary value even if a user deletes web browser history, cookies and temporary internet files. ... The widespread use of FDM makes this research work an attractive option for forensic investigators, ranging from law enforcement agencies to employers monitoring personnel." <li> The review notes: "It's worth noting Free Download Manager's interesting history; it was originally proprietary software, and was later released under the GNU General Public License (though source code for versions 5 and later isn't available). As such, you have to be careful where you download it – the link we've provided here is to the original vendor, but other distributors are free to bundle it with potentially unwanted programs that could really spoil your day."</li> <li> The review notes: "All in all, Free Download Manager is a keeper since it has all the features one might require from such a software. Moreover, it does not stress your CPU every time you start a new download."</li> <li> The abstract notes: "The article reviews the Free Download Manager, an open source software available at Freedownloadmanager.org."</li> <li></li> <li> The abstract notes: "Information on the following: How to manage your online passwords (p.88); How touse Free Download Manager (p.90). Illustrates with photographs".</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Free Download Manager to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.