Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XYplorer


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

XYplorer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Non-notable software. Also almost every edit to the article is by the one editor (User:Pollin Fritic), who only makes edits relating to XYplorer. Please see WP:NOT. AlistairMcMillan 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not true that almost every edit made to this article is by the same editor. Moreover, a google search shows quite a number of hits for this article as well. The article can also be verified. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a closer look at the edit history. 16 edits by Mr Fritic and everyone else only has either one or two edits.


 * Also if you take a closer look at the first hundred results of your google search you'll see that almost all of them are links to software directory sites. After a quick glance through them, the only seemingly genuine review I found is on a blog, where the subsequent post is just a large image of a naked woman with big breasts. AlistairMcMillan 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I was torn on this one.  It does look “Spammy” if that’s a word.  Especially with a link to the company’s website advertising the sale of the product.  However, the software is listed in Wikipedia’s articles…Comparison of file managers and List of portable software.  With that said….Keep. ShoesssS Talk 03:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that XYplorer was added to "Comparison of file managers" by User:88.138.91.123, and added to "List of Portable software" by User:Surrender10. Both of them have only made XYplorer-related edits. AlistairMcMillan 04:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * • In reviewing the list I noticed that User:Argento3 majority of contributions were to Dolphin (software) and               Comparison of file managers .  In addition,  User:80.53.230.202 only contributed to RageWork and Comparison of file managers and so on and so on.  We delete this article you must go in and delete every other article listed on Wikipedia under these article names.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.   ShoesssS Talk 04:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are you talking about with Argento3? He/She's made numerous contributions to articles that have nothing to do with either Dolphin or file managers in general, unless "Roman helmet", "Make Human" and "Template:Infobox software license" are file managers with really strange names. About RageWorks, yeah that looks like another article/advert that needs to be AFD'd. AlistairMcMillan 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are other softwares. -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete where exactly is the "significant coverage" from independent sources. Being listed on a bunch of download sites dont really count for notability.   Corpx 05:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the hits on Google lead to download sites and blogs. Without reputable sources, software is not notable. --Hdt83 Chat 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The purpose of wikipedia is not to accurately describe every single file manager or piece of software in existance. While this seems to be a genuine entry with a few google hits it isn't noteable enough. There are far more prolific, predominant file mangers which already have entries. In itself I wouldn't normally be worried about an article written mainly by one person, but given this case it seems odd that a noteable program would have such minimal input from others, hence I believe it is not sufficiently noteable. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As most of you keep noting the Google Hits, please note WP:GOOGLEHITS, you can't really judge the importance of a company or the value of an article by how many hits on google it gets. Also note WP:BIGNUMBER, you can't say something is notable because of the numbers, one thing could be specifically popular and well-known to a group of people, but that doesn't automatically make it worthwhile in wikipedia -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  but I have to comment on your above remarks.  If an individual is “Popular and well know among a group of individuals “; how big does this group have to be before being listed as noteworthy.  Five – ten-twenty or just maybe two.  If we are going to start putting this as a criteria, I am going to start to nominate every individual player on Soccer – Football – Baseball – National and ect and ect who have articles here at Wikipedia be deleted ShoesssS Talk .02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)~
 * I know you are probably just trying to make a point, but I think your statement is kind of silly. You really think nominating every single sportsperson is going to do any good?  First of all, you would NEVER be able to list them all, as there is just too many for 1 person to do.  Second of all, many people would think you are just doing bad faith nominations, and you would probably have your editing privileges revoked (I'd like to see you nominate Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and see what kind of backlash you get).  Also, are you trying to compare famous, well known, notable sportsmen/women with a software program created by an individual, that not a lot of people have heard of?  Have you even heard of this program before you saw the Afd?  Do you use it?  Where is all the coverage/reviews on this program?  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, I said it doesn't automatically make it worthwhile I never said that all articles were that way, just because something may be popular to a group of people doesn't automatically make it worthwhile. If someone makes an article about a particular game they made up, it may be popular in the whole city or school etc. etc. but just because it's well known in that particular place doesn't mean it's notable, but doesn't mean it's not. You can't inherit notability from the "big number", you can have an article that's notable because of the "big number" but it's not a deal that comes with every article. -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken a look at this article, and researched the product. I modified the google search and included the word "review" to the search, and came up with 16 google hits.  I found 1 real review of the product, with the other sites just being a link to download the softward, with the same basic summary of the product (which is copied from the developer's website mind you).  The original google search basically is all download links, and that's about it.  There really isn't any real "coverage" on this product in the mainstream.  It's relatively unknown, not really notable.  Also, just because it's listed on the "comparison of file managers" and "list of portable software" means nothing to me, and honestly, it means nothing to me WHO did it either, that's irrelevant.  I can go into any list, and add any crap I wanted to, and just because I added it to the list doesn't mean it makes whatever I put in there 1) true, or 2) notable.  Basicaly the end-all-be-all of this is the program is not notable, and the article should be deleted, so that is where I stand on the issue. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Maybe not at the peak of it's fame, but the freeware version had quite a following. Ace of Risk 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could provide some reliable sources to establish notability, it would be great. I'll change my view of the article if those are satisfied.  Thanks. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:47, 16 July 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.