Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NanoZip


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NanoZip

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable software "currently in alpha state of development" - lacking notability  Chzz  ►  04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notability is not lacking - it's the leader in numerous benchmarks. --Varnav (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alarming note to developers that they should not call software "alpha" or mention that the development is not abandoned and that only commercial software is notable to Wikipedia. Samir000 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG and does not get WP:RS outside its immediate community. --Morenooso (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are very little truely reliable sources in any of file archiver articles. There are many articles about not-so-popular archivers as well (DGCA, UHarc, rzip, Filzip) that totally lack any notability. Argument of crystal ball is inappropriate - the software is already working and is already a leader in numerous benchmarks. --Varnav (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL clearly not valid and must have been a misreading by Morenooso. The software is publicly available and nothing refers to the WP:CRYSTAL. WP:GNG and WP:RS: Nobody writes about file archiver software. The benchmarks are the primary source. Compare to these file archiver articles that have NO SOURCES at all: JAR, DGCA, UHarc, AFA file format, Quadruple D, GCA (file format), rzip, Filzip, etc. They are not even in the benchmarks. Or compare the notability to something totally obsolete like Zoo (file format), SQ (program), Compact Pro. I run the largest file compression benchmark (compressionratings) and it's really amazing to have this discussion (instead of deleting DGCA for example). I sincerely hope that these people will not delete other similar software that do well in benchmarks like FreeArc and fail the strict reading of "notability" (like 99% of experimental file archivers). Samir000 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I run the largest file compression benchmark (compressionratings)". Then you are also the author of NanoZip. See WP:COI. Pcap ping  21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed my vote since WP:COI is valid point. I wish I could refer to some other similar transparent benchmark, but none exist. I was hoping to preserve the status of file archiver articles in Wikipedia. Samir000 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google News has never heard of it.  The references supplied are to self published benchmarking websites devoted to the bulk comparison of compression utilities; even if they are reliable sources, the inclusion of this program in their large lists is not convincing evidence of notability.  The existence of more techcruft about equally non notable compression programs is not a strong argument that this should be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously "Google News" will not find anything about file archivers except for Winzip. I made a test searching for "Info-zip" (the standard file archiver) and "Google news" found nothing. Should we delete Info-zip article now? Actually the argument is not simply that other non notable compression software exist, it's that all compression software (excluding Winzip) will fall into such non notability. I will add more benchmark references if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir000 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, I did look at what Google News came up with on a search for "Info-Zip". Right now, I'm not going to express an opinion as to whether or not I think those results can support an article; not relevant anyways.  But these sources are remarkably available for Info-Zip, while NanoZip draws a complete blank. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It doesn't deserve a separate article at the moment. NanoZip gets a passing mention in this book, where it is said that's included in the Maximum Compression Benchmark, which includes over 100 programs. A similar mention appears in this this paper/book wannabe, and an even more fleeting mention in a web page by the same author. Rankings in those benchmarks tend to change a fair bit. NanoZip doesn't offer anything unique algorithmically: its good performance on default setting is due to the detection of file types and application of different algorithms based on that; FreeArc (should be deleted as well), winrar or 7-zip do the same. The wiki article even fails to state this, so it is basically a vague advertisement. Programs like PAQ (the series), although not widely used or covered/cited, at least won some distinct award. Can't say that about NanoZip. Even WinRK was deleted, and arguably it scores better than NanoZip in here. Pcap  ping  17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as non notable. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: What the keep !voters said doesn't matter because none of that stuff makes the article pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2010 (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.