Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResKnife


 * 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   no consensus. Some of the arguments for keeping this article are exceptionally weak, but at the moment it doesn't appear that there is adequate consensus to support deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ResKnife

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

* Keep: Sorry Joe. Just not enough to warrant a delete. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage on macnn, sourceforge magazine, and cnet is significant enough UltraMagnusspeak 13:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourceforge isn't a magazine, it is a download site. Macnn is a trivial mention. The CNET page is just a place to download the software. So the article doesn't pass the notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * funny how gnews says sourceforge.jp is a magazine, I guess I just assumed that the Japanese sourceforge had some sort of magazine. Macnn is significant in its niche (see wp:obscure)
 * The only coverage is one sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How does "ResKnife 0.4d1, now with OS X-compatibility, is a recent beta version of "developmental, freeware resource editor with ambitions to challenge Resorcerer as the premier tool of choice for developers." being the only coverage not warrant a delete? Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the only !votes that this gets are keeps because of one sentence, the AFD should be relisted. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero significant coverage found in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are lots of sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No significant coverage in reliable ones though, which is the real issue here.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That link only has a sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Macnn calls it the "premier tool of choice for developers."  Other mentions of it are quite favorable as well.  They may not say much about it, but what they do say, is quite favorable.  So yeah, its notable.   D r e a m Focus  07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep since potentially useful, free software should always have a place in WP. The article alone may attract others who can improve it, or upon it. -MBHiii (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: All of these keeps aren't based on any guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is a guideline, and people are following it by trying to improve wikipedia --UltraMagnusspeak 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is a policy that only has a sentence and two essays to describe it. IAR has barely ever been a strong argument especially when the coverage is only two sentences. IAR has always just been an excuse for people to go against the guidelines. If everyone ignored all rules towards notability and other stuff like blocking, Wikipedia would not be a good place to be. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have changed to strong Keep because of the quality of references and the large number of references. It is notable! Macnn state that it is "premier tool of choice for developers."  Many other  "mentions" are favourable! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Srong Keep because of two sentences and a google search with download sites? Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Ghits are download sites; the macnn mention quotes some other source to say that it is a "developmental, freeware resource editor with ambitions to challenge Resorcerer as the premier tool of choice for developers". Ambitions? Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 21 October 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.