Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JZip


 * 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 - Notability not established. Reviews on softpedia are nice, to be sure- but they review almost everything. No coverage by reliable sources- bloggers, unless very well known, do not count. Who knows, perhaps this might become notable one day. But it isn't now. David Fuchs ( talk ) 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

JZip

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An unnotable suspicious proprietary derivative of the LGPL 7-Zip, released 2 months (according to Comparison of file archivers) (2 weeks as beta, according to the article; right before the article was created) to ago (right after that point, the article was created), having fewer features. Also, the author's nickname “Archiver 53” and contribution list combination with that makes it more suspicious. AVRS 11:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Suggest Delete or Weak Merge into 7-Zip or 7z. --AVRS 11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think the authenticity of "Archiver 53" is the point and I don't know why you refer to jZip as suspicious. There is a link to it from the 7-Zip websitewhich means that Igor Pavlov thinks it's worthy, I see over 5000 downloads in the last week of this application on download.com, almost 200 references to jzip.com on Google (only 2 of them on www.jzip.com), a 4 star review on Softpediaand the whole notion of the LGPL is that you can build things on top of it. I think that this justifies an article. Duras2000 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Igor Pavlov thinking it's worthy doesn't mean it is or ever will be notable. Most, if not all, of those references are loud advertisement or just plain download links on ad-supported software download sites, and half of the comments for them are criticizing the advertising text, license, or platform requirements. It is suspicious, because it is proprietary (copying (except for 1 backup), distribution and modification strictly prohibited), contains no innovation (except for putting WinZip-like GUI onto 7-Zip instead of its own GUI with a file manager with 2-panel mode support), and with all that, advertising it as one of the best (and free, completely free, that's SO rare!) file archivers -- those 5000+ downloads are probably because of the advertisement and the Wikipedia article. The first version of the article also was like an advertisement. If the program ever becomes notable, an article on it may be created, but now it's nothing like unique. --AVRS 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Microsoft Windows is proprietary and uninnovative too, yet Microsoft advertise it as one of the best. And that's not even free. Shall we delete that article too? :) -- 86.139.86.174 10:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, Microsoft Windows is everywhere. Is JZip any popular yet? :) --AVRS 11:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Microsoft is not saying it is a completely free alternative to anything, so not being gratis is not a problem for Windows here. --AVRS 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't deal with probable here. Do you have any way to substantiate that the 5000 downloads on Download.com are a result of advertising? Do you have a count of how many people downloaded this becasue of the wiki article? If you claim that 5000 people came from Wikipedia, then how did they get to the article on Wikipedia to begin with? If they decided that they want to know more about jZip and as a result came to Wiki it proves the point that the article should stay. I think we discussed this matter enough. Can we remove the AfD? You clearly don't have the consensus required for deletion Duras2000 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot. --AVRS 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you can always start a dispute resolution processes, as it doesn't look like you'll get consensus for removal. It's your choice. Duras2000 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD was opened only a day ago. I think it is a bit premature to say that we can't build a consensus! --Karnesky 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I found the article useful in my search for a free zip software. Jayme 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think of merging (moving the useful stuff from this article into 7-Zip or 7z)? --AVRS 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as not (yet) notable. --Karnesky 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DCEdwards1966 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to review the definiiton of notability. There is significant coverage and enough sources - softpedia, download.com and plenty of bloggers covered it. The info is reliable - you can verify it yourself. I don't know if the original author is reliable, but at this point in time it doesn't matter. The article is up and so is the software. Has any of you actually tried it? Out of criousity, what got you to look it up on Wiki and decide to participate (I saw it on a blog, downloaded it, like it, and looked it up on Wiki)Duras2000 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge&rarr; 7-Zip &mdash; I think this topic sits at the cusp of notability and the article itself does not assert notability for the topic. By the same token, the WinZip article also has some problems.  Notability is not a relative property nor is it based on popularity or utility per se.  It can be inferred from the WinZip article that this tool was the first GUI adaptation of the DOS command line PKZIP, which itself established notability.  We can consider potential points that would establish notability for the jZip topic along these lines.  For instance:
 * is jZip the first Java-based compression tool (very unlikely)
 * is jZip the first Java-implementation of the PKZIP algorithm (perhaps)
 * is it the first free compression tool (no; consider FreeZip 2000 from PepSoft)
 * is it the first packaging of the 7-Zip compression method in a compression application suite (perhaps)
 * does it have a unique combination of compression formats (perhaps, but that would not be a basis for establishing notability)
 * has it been incorporated as a core component of an otherwise notable application suite or platform (e.g. Office or Eclipse)
 * is it a product of a notable company (that would support a merger into the company's article or into a spinoff 'products' article; Discordia is apparently a company with a single product, jZip (it took a bit of filtering through search results to tentatively establish that))
 * As it stands, the article does not assert notability on any of these grounds. However, I am willing to allow for the improvement of the article by knowledgeable editors making an assertion of notability.  On to the matter of reliable sources.  In the software field, in particular the freeware, open-source and shareware fields, coverage by traditional journalistic or literary outlets is more the exception than the norm; blogs and solely-online information outlets play a very important role here, though Wikipedia has a collectively dim view of using blogs as reliable sources, or even sources for verifiability.  I'm not too familiar with the sources referenced, so bear with me.  Consider Softpedia; the article there has a byline with a real name and an associated title.  Further, Softpedia has a published editorial process for software reviews (see http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/); therefore, I would consider this to be a reliable, independent source, even if it has no life on paper.  Download.com, on the other hand, has a more directory-style review with software publisher notes and downloader commentary - not a reliable source by my reckoning.  By this look the article has a single reliable source ... and really needs more.  A search for same by me did not turn up any others - but there might be others out there.  Again, I'll give the editors the benefit of the doubt ... for a time.  I would expect to see this renominated for deletion or merger within six months if improvements were not made. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not jzip.org the Java GPL ZIP implementation from 2003. Neither it is JZip the OS-independent BSD-licensed John's Z-Code interpreter from 2000. It's a Windows-only proprietary program from 2007. --AVRS 08:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With as little information as there is in jZip now, I'd agree with “Merge” (as a line in a list of 7-Zip derivatives or in 7z), but calling it “merge“ still feels a bit strange. So, what I'd call “merge” here is basically the same as “delete”. Strangely, there is an article on p7zip, though it's just a port of 7z.exe and 7za.exe from 7-Zip. --AVRS 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Merging would preserve the current title as a redirect tagged with Template:R from merge in order to preserve the edit history of jZip. Deleting does not preserve the edit history in a publicly viewable form. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Ceyockey - keep it for now and get back to this discussion in 6 months on 1 Feb 2008. Duras2000 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect Merge/direct it back to LGPL 7-Zip, from whence it came. We can eventually fork it back out later. • Lawrence Cohen  13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge/Redirect It might be good to wait until this becomes notable (if it does). I'd personally delete this article and replace it with a two sentence footnote to the 7-Zip article. —User:Sladen 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another archiver. Such articles are typically of low value and nobody maintains them. Pavel Vozenilek 02:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn't look like any of the writers actually tried the software.. how about we discuss the merits of the software? Any thoughts? Duras2000 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 9 September 2007 (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.