Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FileScope

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Gnutella2. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FileScope[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

FileScope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. This software was abandoned in 2014 and lacked any sources reporting on it even when it was supported. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.KBAHT: Thanks for finding these links. Unfortunatelly, I don't think even one of them has "in-depth coverage" of FileScope. The second (Greek) and third (Russian) sources just list FileScope among many other programs, they do not have a single sentence fully dedicated to FileScope. I could not find download link for the first source, but abstract does not inspire confidene and even if this source was in-depth, it would not be sufficient basis to hinge notability on. Perhaps, there are more sources? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anton.bersh: I agree about the Spanish and the Greek sources. They basically mention that the subject is one of several other P2P clients supporting Gnutella2. The Russian source is saying that it's one of the most popular Gnutella2 clients. From the GNG point of view the subject is not notable, of course. However, the WP:NSOFT policies allow to include the software which is notable in a specific field, not necessarily in the general scope. If Gnutella2 is a notable P2P technology, then the most popular clients for Gnutella2 should be notable as well, based on WP:NSOFT. That's why I voted to keep the article. If my interpretation of WP:NSOFT is wrong or Gnutella2 is not notable, then I will not insist. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.KBAHT: Wikipedia articles need content useful to readers and supported by reliable sources. Right now, I don't see anything that could warrant more than two sentences about Filescope. As of now, FileScope article just creates confussion and does not convey much information. It has only one reference to filescope.com which is meant to support a vague claim that "the application is cross-platform but current builds only support running it under Microsoft Windows, but it is due to also run under Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unix-based platforms." So does it support only Windows or Linux/Mac OS/Unix? The Russian source just states (translated for convenience): "The most popular client programs for Gnutella2 are Shareaza, Kiwi, Alpha, Morpheus, Gnucleus, Adagio Pocket G2, FileScope, iMesh, MLDonkey." This content might be suitable for Gnutella2 article, but not really useful in FileScope.
If there is actual content which could be used in FileScope, I'd be glad to integrate it into FileScope myself if noone else wants to do it. If there is no supported content suitable for an article, logically, there can be no article. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anton.bersh: Thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with you. So, I'm withdrawing my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As of this writing I don't see how this passes WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 19:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We don't have any reliable sources in English for the software, so I think the prospects for getting an adequate-quality article under this name are slight. I'm inclined to redirect/merge, in view of the fact that the article is referred to by many other articles, may be of interest to people researching history of file sharing, and has scholarly documentation in other languages. However, none of the filesharing articles I've looked to are really adequate targets. If we had a list of P2P file sharing applications, that would be the most obvious; as a distant second best, we could target Gnutella2#Clients. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chalst: There are actually very few content articles with links to FileScope. Most of them actually use Template:Gnutella2, which includes FileScope. Therefore after FileScope deletion (if we decide to delete it) it would be trivial to remove all dead links to FileScope. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FileScope&oldid=1031272776"