Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zipeg (2nd nomination)


 * 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. WP:G4 is inapplicable as the current version is not substantially a copy of the version deleted following the original AfD. Non-trivial coverage in Macworld, CNet and The Hindu would usually be enough for a straightforward keep, but this coverage is brief, so I am closing this without prejudice against re-nomination at a later date. Skomorokh 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Zipeg
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

All that I can find is download sites. Fails WP:N. This article was deleted in 2007, but was recreated in January 2008. I am unable to tell from the previous AFD if the second article looks very close to the same way as the deleted article. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This freeware article is short, concise, factually correct, encyclopedic and sourced.  The first AfD was borderline, and the only delete !vote complained about alledged spam and lack of both primary and secondary sources - even though another !voter already had provided links to independent reviews.  For the freeware world we cannot expect scholary mention nor NYTimes coverage, and from what I have seen of earlier discussion, I think community consensus is to keep these articles. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are places to download the software and not reviews. They are just a description of the software with a download link. Community concensus has been to delete software articles that don't pass the notability guideline (A short AFD discussion in 2007 does not determine that). Joe Chill (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you're talking about the proposed software notability guideline which goes against many guidelines and policies so there is no chance of it being accepted. Joe Chill (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is this brief mention in the Hindu. But aside form that, all I can find are download links rather than actual reviews that would represent significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is freeware (no spam possible). And, more important, I found a review in Macworld with a 3,5/5 rating. Andreasm Light Apple Logo Free.png just talk to me 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which that isn't multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but it's a major improvement over the concerns voiced at the first AfD, the mention in Hindu.com is not clear-cut trivial, and per WP:FAILN, For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look unclear to me. Joe Chill (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy delete under G4. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor piece of software that has received a few small reviews as is to be expected. In the spirit of WP:ORG any information could be merged to a parent article. Quantpole (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, merge could be an option, but I see no merge target. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case it should just be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have different opinions on that. Basically I hold our WP:PRESERVE policy more dear than our WP:N guideline.  And we may have different opinions on Encyclopedic value.  Take for instance Nike+iPod, an article I just consulted for info, and which I consider a useful article of the sort that only Wikipedia can produce - there are few full blown refs at present, and it may thus not pass the celebrated WP:GNG, but it likely will shortly.  Anyway, if it doesnt, it will face an uncontroversial delete in the future as a dayfly.  In the meantime, we have no shortage of space per WP:NOTPAPER.  Zipeg passes 5|core values; specifically WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV - there are independent reviews, one is Macworld, a so far undisputed RS.  The sole offensive point here is the subjective interpretaion of the word multiple sources.  All the good energy and time spent here in such AfDs could be spent more wisely actually producing or improving Wikipeida content - it's an opportunity foregone. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is one core value - wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, from which all others values emanate. In line with the notability guidlines for products and services, I do not consider this product notable. You disagree, which is fine. Quantpole (talk) 10:57, 13 August 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.