Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnFREEz


 * 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, lack of non-trivial mentions in reliable sources to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

UnFREEz

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

First saw this article about a year ago and thought it was spam so I nommed for speedy delete. This was rejected, so I left it alone to see if it might improve. Article has not improved in the last year and appears to have notability issues. The article claims the program is notable for being "one of the smallest application downloads" but that is not in the source provided, which simply comments on it being small rather than the smallest. None of the sources or links are reliable, just some minor websites reviewing this freeware program. So, don't think this program is in any way notable. GDallimore (Talk) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - weak sources, but this software is widely used --T-rex 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this application software is commonly used by Windows users- Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a notable software. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - claims that software is commonly or often used does not make it notable since I can equally claim never to have heard of it outside wikipedia. There is nothing in the article to suggest it is notable. None of the three comments above move this debate forward in any way whatsover. GDallimore (Talk) 06:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rather than depreciating other editor's opinions, it may be more useful to remind editors that Notability does not require that the article state why a subject is notable, Notability is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User's opinions concerning popularity are not relevant here - neither mine nor anyone else's - which is the point I was making. This is not a vote. I stated in my nomination that the sources provided (a few minor websites) are not reliable. Therefore the requirement you quote and which I am well aware of is not fulfilled. Nothing has been provided to counter that. As the creator of this article, you might want to do some more research to find reliable sources or explain why the sources there are reliable in order to support your claim concerning notability. GDallimore (Talk) 11:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer to make a last ditch effort to save this article. A quick search turned up about 10,000 articles, reviews and references to this application, so obviously it meets the notability criteria. I could race around and add a few dozen more citations, but I am sure that would just lead to more criticism. You obviously are very dedicated to removing this article. Personally I am not that attached to it. As explained on the talk page, I identified a gap in the completeness of Wikipedia and filled it by starting the article. If you don't think it is good enough then by all means delete it. If the article survives this latest AfD attempt then I will add some more refs. If not, then I won't bother. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a few dozen blog pages or download mirrors as refs is not going to help the subject of this article appear more notable. Try to find something reliable. GDallimore (Talk) 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable software. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Googling "unfreez review -unfreeze" yields 10000 hits; it would be pretty puzzling if not at least a few dozens would be acceptable. Here's one that's definetely WP:RS: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4698 ¨¨ victor   falk  13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's worth noting that there are at least two, completely different, programs called "Unfreez", making the "Google test" doubly unreliable in this case. I also fail to see how a download site can be called a reliable source. GDallimore (Talk) 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Against the comment above, it's just a download site, the information provided is copied directly from the softwares homepage. Further more from the first few pages of results, they were nothing more then passing references to the application from non-reliable sources.  Q  T C 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. 10,000 Google hits that are all software directories is not notability, it's successful marketing. Where are citations of trade publication articles, written by disinterested third parties? Also, an anonymous user who seems to have a vested interest is trying desperately (and failing, so far) to get UnFREEz mentioned and linked to from the GIF article; I suspect this is just a concerted effort for SEO marketing and should not be supported. Whether others have gotten away with it is irrelevant. —mjb (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the reviews and 23000 google hits for unfreez animated gif. Revelian (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment as mentioned by GDallimore above, many of those hits are to a different piece of software with the same name, and those that do refer to this particular app are actually to download sites, which are not reliable sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ghits are not enough to show notability. If it is notable, some actual RSs are needed.Yobmod (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic completely lacks coverage in reliable sources. No reliable sources are cited, and I am not sure any exist. Non-notable software. --Edcolins (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2008 (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.