Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XYplorer (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 Keep Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XYplorer

Delete Non-notable piece of software. Previous nomination resulted in delete. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. —BradV 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. archanamiya · talk 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, PC Magazine saying it's among the best free software[1] is evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to its download page, it's not free. The blurb in PC Magazine is undated, and of questionable value since much of the text on that page is copied from other sources. Tedickey (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the program is a shareware program, an older free version is still available. The free version page was linked from the download page at one time but was moved to a link from the FAQ page instead due to support request problems. See the next to last paragraph in License section of [XYplorer FAQ page] for link to the freeware page. And the issue of notability is for the program itself, and not the free vs shareware issue. The listing in PC Magazine appeared on page 82 of the March 2008 print issue (vol 27, nbr 4) and can also be seen at their web site via [The Best Free Software] where it is dated as Feb 8, 2008. The entry itself is at [Interface Enhancement]. Given the nature of the article, it is a brief summary of each application. Other items appearing in same section are Google Toolbar and Yahoo Widgets, so it's in good company. This article is one of a handful of similar "Honor Roll" type articles throughout the year that make that magazine well-known, so to be included in that may be more noteworthy than appearing in a standalone review. Whr76 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References demonstrate that it has been noted by independent parties, and is thus notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only real review in the References section is the one from PC World, and possibly the one from Gizmo. All the others urls say nothing more than "XYPlorer". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The References section was revised/moved and the first three External Links are now XYplorer specific sites and the others are reviews and mentions in web and/or print publications. The latest added is from Fred Langa's web newsletter (LangaList 01/23/2006). Fred is a very well-known writer and was Editor-in-Chief of Byte_Magazine for 4 yrs so while he may not have a WP page of his own, he is certainly known in the computer tech publishing area. Also, discussion of a program in a publication read/heard by tens of thousands of subscribers worldwide should be enough to establish notability without the requirement of it being a formal review. Whr76 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains notable references, such as PC Magazine. Luk suh 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Original article was deleted prior to the two major media reviews/mentions (PC Magazine and Windows Weekly podcast) occurring which caused me to request a reconsideration from a moderator (Hdt83) of the article. See User_talk:Hdt83#Follow-up_to_XYplorer_deletion_from_last_July for reference. It was his decision and initial action that resurrected the article, so that's why it's back, as these two items were notable enough in his opinion that it now qualified. While the review in that particular PC magazine article was brief as all others were, it was the only file manager product in that category. There has since been a review on PC World site also as mentioned above.Whr76 (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: A number of the undesired recent article edits by an IP addr 77.201.147.100 user made the article more likely for deletion, and are now in process of being removed and/or modified. Please consider this as part of your decision, and look at the article as it exists more recently.Whr76 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Pretty widespread and well-known shell replacement for explorer. I'm surprised at the lack of readily available sources, however. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See no reason why we are deleting this entry, but keeping for example a43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (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.