Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer Collection


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Internet Explorer Collection

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

Unofficial (and possibly copyright violating) installer for IE. Blowdart | talk 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of reliable sources. (Personally I don't think the copyright thing holds much weight, at least for the earlier versions. If you don't plan on selling or supporting a piece of software, you can't expect to control it). - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * aside Copyright doesn't work like that you know. Otherwise you'd have fun with GPL software too, that's not sold, but generally is copyrighted. --Blowdart | talk 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (rant) True, I know it doesn't work like that. At least with the GPL, it's actually accessible and copyright is commonly in use by people selling their work. I just can't stand companies grabbing copyright and not actually using it. Take Viacom for example: they continually hassle YouTube to take down videos of material they supposedly own. But there are several programs that would be lost forever if no one put them online (as a Wikipedian I abhor the loss of verifiable information in any fashion). If Viacom were to release videos or DVDs themselves they could actually make money of the fans rather than annoy them.
 * Delete. Copyright issues are hardly a consideration in whether this software is notable or not; otherwise we'd have to delete the article on The Pirate Bay and similar websites. But while this is apparently consumer software, there aren't any independent sources shown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * aside Ah but Copyright if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.. The Pirate Bay doesn't host works, only links :) --Blowdart | talk 15:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because it's listed (as Freeware, just like Internet Explorer itself) on all major software web-sites (BetaNews, Softpedia, Brothersoft, etc.) and on tons of blogs. Another reason to keep the article is because Internet Explorer Collection is very special: it's the only installer which can make stand-alone IE versions run on newer Operating Systems like Windows Vista and Windows 7. Finally the article has a lot of nice links to other relevant Wikipedia articles. - Peter356 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) — Peter356 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete for the lack of reliable independent sources. Whether the software itself is a copyright violation or not (IANAL) doesn't matter for the purpose of notability though (see for example Category:Unauthorized video games) as long as the external links are removed, which I see has already been done. BryanG (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created the article because nowhere else on Wikipedia is written that IE isn't that integrated in Windows as Microsoft says it is, and as far as I know there is no other way to use IE8 standalone, nor was it possible before to use older IE versions in Windows Vista and 7. Also I'm not aware of any other which has Conditional Comments, User Agent and Version Numbers all correct in every version. I think it's really important that at least the information that it is possible stays on Wikipedia. Otherwise only Microsoft's narrow "it's not possible, period" view would be on Wikipedia and I think that's a bad thing. Also, there are a lot of other software articles like this one, which all still exist. I'm open for discussion about improving the article. I (or someone else) can edit the article to address any concern. - IECollection (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) — IECollection (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as original research and promotion. IECollection is factually wrong on several points, but I will address that on his talk page rather than here. WillOakland (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I've rolled back the last edit by which changed WillOakland's comments. --Blowdart | talk 10:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Internet Explorer Collection is a must have for any web developer. - Wpu09 (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC) — Wpu09 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note I didn't change WillOakland's comment's, but I removed them because 1. WillOakland was banned before and 2. he states that "it's" wrong on several points, without giving an explanation or reason anywhere. - Wpu09 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment removing legitimate votes is vandalism, pure and simple. And he did indeed provide an explanation as he said he was going to. --Blowdart | talk 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve/extend the article where needed. Deleting the article would not only remove the mention of a popular tool for web developers from Wikipedia, but also a point of view, which I don't think is a good idea. - SoftwareDev (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — SoftwareDev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * People who claim that IE is not an integral part of Windows are not expressing a point of view. They're displaying ignorance (or wishful thinking). In any case, "It's cool" and "It's useful" are not recognized reasons to keep a software article. WillOakland (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note But Internet Explorer Collection works, so it proves that IE is not that integrated in Windows that it's impossible to run on a totally different version of Windows then the IE version was made for. This has nothing to do with ignorance, nor with wishful thinking. Further I never said "It's cool", etc. In case you really do know something we don't know then please go improve the article. - SoftwareDev (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. I have already explained the things I know that you apparently don't at User talk:IECollection. WillOakland (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note You write that Windows provides a WebBrowser control, which is true, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Because that control can be removed while the rest of Windows keeps working and it's possible that a totally different version of that control can be made to work on a totally other Windows version proves that it's not that integrated, otherwise Windows couldn't be used without that WebBrowser control and what Internet Explorer Collection does wouldn't be possible. So what you write is (or may be) true, I'm not wrong. Internet Explorer Collection and utilities like nLite prove this too. - SoftwareDev (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure how software notability is established. It's available for download from lots of sites, but so is lots (and lots. and lots) of software. I presume to be notable it must be standard IT industry software (which it's not for obvious reasons) or in the public consciousness to the extent it's mentioned extensively on software news sites, if not general news...? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's established the same way as for all other subjects. This is an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest.  Notability is coverage, in depth, of the subject in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  To establish it, cite sources independent of the software's creator(s) that discuss and document this subject in depth.  Ignore the irrelevant arguments about whether some piece of software is part of some other piece of software.  Hit counts and downloads are irrelevant, too.  Neither provide verifiable material for an encyclopaedia article.  Notability is not size, fame, or importance.  It's Notability. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Paying no attention to the arguments about integral or otherwise nature of IE. :) Like George Washington's axe.
 * My question is really where the lines are generally drawn. Lots of software that might be notable that won't have a mention at, for example, http://bbc.co.uk/news . Quite possible for a version of Halo to miss the mainstream news but be all over forums and software review sites. What I want to know is if repeated mentions at reputable sites like Technet etc make a piece of software notable? Then, how many hits etc? 30 reviews at sites like Technet is nothing near as noteable as a significant story in the mainstream news. Using Google, it's hard to establish what notability is for software; and where to draw the line.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is really where the lines are generally drawn. Lots of software that might be notable that won't have a mention at, for example, http://bbc.co.uk/news . Quite possible for a version of Halo to miss the mainstream news but be all over forums and software review sites. What I want to know is if repeated mentions at reputable sites like Technet etc make a piece of software notable? Then, how many hits etc? 30 reviews at sites like Technet is nothing near as noteable as a significant story in the mainstream news. Using Google, it's hard to establish what notability is for software; and where to draw the line.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 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.