Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genozip

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genozip[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI article, written by the software's creator (who did acknowledge the COI on the article's talk page). However, not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. It gets some mentions, but most of the article is based on primary sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the majority of sources being primary. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the article creator has added some reliable secondary sources, though source two is unreliable, and the article still needs some work. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done some cleanup, but the promotional tone is not gone yet. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 00:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article author showed interest in improving the article, so with some careful work it can be brought up to encyclopedic standards. At least, it is not a dead article. Anton.bersh (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as non-commerical open source software with some sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. CanadianOtaku's work along with the sources added by the creator seems to show the subject meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good if those !voting "delete" could comment on the changes made to the article since the start of this AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, COI w/o signs of WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify. It's too soon (see [1]). MarioGom (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to restoration to draft for expansion if additional reliable independent sources discussing the topic arise or can be found. BD2412 T 04:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The added sources are not reliable, so the effort to save this page has gone to waste so far. I would not oppose a userfication. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 7 April 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.