Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartPAR


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

SmartPAR

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

DELETE as this is a non-notable freeware app. JBsupreme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Are you kidding me? This is an abandoned piece of software that the original author has considered obsolete - and we have an article explaining this? This is not what we are for. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Change !vote to keep on account of Tothwolf's work, and on account that the nom seems to be on a crusade against software that, if not for what's provided for in WP:IAR, should not be here. Besides, I'd be a hypocrite to keep my delete !vote here, given circumstances, and vote a keep !vote over on Joe's Own Editor. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I've rewritten this stub article and added references. Notability is not temporary. The nom was acting in bad faith in nominating this article for AfD as he was already aware of a reliable source that covers this subject. This book is linked in the Deletion Review that JBsupreme initiated after he did not like the outcome of the Parchive AfD:

--Tothwolf (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like passing coverage to me. Not honestly qualified as "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable third party, let alone multiple citations of it.  Oh, and thanks for the strawman argument and assuming good faith. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like notability to me, particularly when combined with everything else that can be found via Google. As much as you are unhappy with Parchive, put down the stick already, that horse ain't moving anymore. (Note that nominating the other related article which is also covered in the same book immediately after making the above comment was probably not a good move on your part either.) --Tothwolf (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the article is as uninformative as it can get. None of the External Links lead to the software's page--one is obvious spam. The software cannot be obtained in any easy way. The "old home" says it has a "new home" but the "new home" itself cannot be accessed. -- 85.133.201.70 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Uninformative is subjective and is not a valid reason for deletion. The article includes a book as a reference so please feel free to further improve the article. The links seem to work fine for me, with the exception of the link that I marked as a dead link. I certainly don't see anything resembling "spam" there. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One mere mention in one book is not notable. No, Tothwolf, I didn't follow you here. I followed JBsupreme. Am I stalking him too? Miami33139 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous references, software is still used. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A quick search gives many results, containing multiple tutorials (both on the first google results page), a mentioning on the PArchive site  and a lot of places to download it although the official site seems unavailable. It seems this tool is widely spread. (This is the first time I'm actually commenting on a deletion discussion, but I hope this can help out) Yarcanox (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Random websites with tutorials are not references. Since you said this is your first attempt at a discussion, the issue that primarily needs to be addressed is Notability, which requires multiple sources, independent of the subject, that are reliable. sites like binaries4all would generally fail the standard of being reliable. Welcome to the free entertainment of AfD, Yarcanox. Miami33139 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, but absolutely not in this case, unless you're going to argue that a utility designed to facilitate the downloading of binaries from Usenet isn't primarily warez-related. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As with QuickPar, merge to an Implementations section in Parchive. This is a sentence and a half of information specific to its subject, and a sentence and a half applicable to Parchive in general; and as the software has been obsolete for over seven times as long as it was up-to-date, it's unlikely in the extreme ever to get expanded much beyond that. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 15:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability seems to have been established. Haakon (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep being included in a standard work for the subject indicates a certain amount of notability, but it would be good to have additional references.   DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 2 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.