Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zim (software)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Zim (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable software. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Snotty Wong  speak 19:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable references. Sumsum2010 · T · C  19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even out of beta. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Zim exists for three years now and is improving, as you can see on Freshmeat.net (last update in November). I added a more "reliable" description page in the external links. Greetings! --Kdkeller (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the fact that it's been around for 3 years and is still on version "0.49" is a point against it rather than for it. On rare occasions some highly-anticipated beta software can be notable, but I see nothing to indicate that's the case here.  3 years without any reliable sources also speaks poorly for it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I want to give a quick friendly comment to this. I would understand if you said the article is too short, but the resources for a small piece of software are enough in my opinion. Isn't the software relevant when Zim is in the repositories of Ubuntu? I don't speak English at a native level and it took me time to translate the German article. If this article is deleted I will be very disappointed and my work will concentrate on wikis with a more "inclusion" point of view. Greetings! --Kdkeller (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I found this source, written by an author who writes extensive software reviews, but basically self-published at Associated Content. (Posting the link triggered the Wikipedia spam filter.) This podcast episode includes substantial coverage but is also self-published. I wish there were a better source. I feel like it's close. --Pnm (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (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.