Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IZArc

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. --VS ^talk 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IZArc[edit]

Does not meat wikipedia notability guidelines. Editor list 400K google hits and listed on 7 other wikipedia's as reasons for notability. These reasons do not meet wp:note. I quickly scanned the top 50 google hits and did notice a single independent review. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it gets 414,000 results on Google search, and 54,600 results on Google Blog Search. Since many websites (whether they are "reliable sources" [personal websites, blogs and threads on web forums are considered "unreliable"] or not) do mention IZArc, and it supports more file types than many other compression utilities. Also it was rated 5-stars on Toget[1], it has high notability (notability means worthy of being noted, important or outstanding, according to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Therefore, it should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Daniel, you're right, 414,000 Google hits and 7 other Wikipedias are no evidence of notability, but they provide some indication nonetheless: A non-notable subject is much less likely to have both as many Google hits and interwiki links. You say this program "doesn't meet wp:note". However, wp:note only lists highly general guidelines and links to more specific guidelines for various topics, such as people, books, music etc. - but not software. Don't get me wrong, I'm surprised there are no guidelines for software and think there should be some. However, for as long as we don't have any, a curt blanket statement like "doesn't meet wp:note" isn't very helpful. And even if they existed, I doubt that this program would fail them. As for reliable sources, I quickly scanned the top 50 google hits and found several of independent reviews in the mainstream press, including CHIP [2], FAZ [3], Stern [4]. That's probably because I had my Google interface language set to German (English indeed produces different results), but I daresay non-English sources count as much, right? Let me stress that I'm in no way associated with this program or its author, I'm not even a user. I hadn't heard of it until yesterday, when I was watching a screencast on how to install DokuWiki [5]. Apart from Firefox and FileZilla (popular and trusted open-source programs) it recommends using IZArc. That made me curious. The Wikipedia article was helpful insofar as it pointed out issues (faulty 7z support and no unicode support), preventing me from wasting my time on it. No other sources seem to mention these. Thus, even if you dislike the program for whatever reason, you might want to reconsider your delete vote. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those German reviews do not appear to be independent reviews, rather just rehash of the main web page and offering the tool for download. The third one is questionable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A highly notable software.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Popular software is not criteria for wikipedia article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC) this comment was by the nominator, recommendation struckthrough, as it is implied in the nominationnstatement.JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWikipedia is always my first port of call to checkout downloads etc Aatomic1 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say that it is popular enough that it is notable. I found a large number of largely simple reviews (it works and does it's job well) but the raw number of reviews was scary. Many were rehashes/copies of each other, but I found at least 6 that were independent (though short). Hobit (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a comment, not new vote. Daniel, two things: I get the impression you're on some crusade to get this article deleted. Again, I don't use this program, I only learnt about it a few days ago, but I found this article helpful enough when I did (see above). That's about it, so if it does get deleted, it won't actually ruin my day. You, by contrast, seem to be hell-bound on deleting this no matter what. Regarding your new arguments, all German reviews are from the respectable, mainstream (read non-geek) press. Fair enough, the first two appear to be part of software catalogues rather than typical reviews, but they're still maintained by major media that quite probably don't accept just any program that comes along. What's supposed to be "dubious" about the last, "genuine" review remains a mystery to me. Care to enlighten us? BTW, is it actually correct to start a request for deletion and then discreetly cast yet another delete vote in the discussion?? :O Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this current form, the article should be deleted because it does not meet WP:NOTE and it serves more as a WP:SPAM article. If editors can show me non-trivial coverage or reviews of reliable and independent secondary sources (not here, but in the article) to show that the article is verifiable, I'll change my opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)d[reply]
- Please recall that the standard is that sources exist, not that the article needs repair. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remind that we have standards for inclusion of all articles in Wikipedia, one of which is WP:V. As long as you don't show verifiability in the article, it is subjected to deletion policy. Dekisugi (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I'll raise you that both WP:V and the deletion policy require verifiable sources exist, not that they be in the article. Of course they should be there, but per policy that's not the standard. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The onus to prove WP:V is in the editor, not the reader. As long as you don't provide them in the article, I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article meets Wikipedia's WP:SPAM guidelines then most articles about products or services in Wikipedia would meet those guidelines. The problem , to me at least, is that some of the most vocal Wikipedia editors aren't native English speakers or don't have the reading comprehension necessary to accurately interpret Wikipedia's guidelines. I think this article passes the notability test. Public Menace (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And another comment (to Dekisugi). I absolutely don't understand the "spam" argument. The article lists the program's distinguishing features in a matter-of-factly manner and duly mentions the downsides, too (see my point above). One man's spam is another man's steak and all that, but that isn't my idea of "spam". Also, no implausible or unverifiable claims whatsoever are made here, so verifiability isn't really the issue. I mean, we're not talking celestial teapots here (which WP:V was obviously written in mind with), but bread-and-butter software. Even if none of the 400k+ Google results were trustworthy, one could simply download and try the program to verifiy the article. Of course, not everyone is willing to do that (I wasn't), but that doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist. (When I want to buy a used car, I won't ask the dealer for "non-trivial coverage or reviews" or "reliable and independent secondary sources" about this particular car, not when I can always take it for a test-drive, right?) Also, I took the time to compare this article with every single the 41 other file archivers listed in the footer. Turns out that out of those 41 articles, just 7 have any "independent" references at all: Alzip (14 references, all in Korean!), StuffIt, WinZip, WinRAR, Izop, PAQ, PK-ZIP. By Dekisugi's logic, all others would instantly qualify for deletion. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Jimmy Fleischer - Let's stick to WP guidelines to write articles here, okay? There states WP:V with refer to reliable sources. Prove it in the article, then I'll change my opinion. Saying millions of Google hits does not prove WP:V. Oh, and it'd be very interesting to hear you asking car retailers about WP:NOTE guidelines of a car when you buy it. ;-) Dekisugi (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - one last thing. Don't compare with other articles. WP:WAX doesn't apply here. They are all subjected to AfD if meets the criteria. We only discuss this article in this debate. Dekisugi (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to Dekisugi: Funny how you always have WP:THIS or WP:THAT handy without ever talking down to earth. Rules are fine, but what counts is not their letter but their spirit. How about some less rule-citing and some more common sense? Common sense tells us that there must be a more or less consistent standard to judge articles by. If you want this article deleted because it only quotes a single external source (incidentally the same as WinRAR), but wouldn't even dream of deleting WinRAR (I bet you don't), then obviously there's something wrong with your standard. Also just as obviously you didn't get the drift of my example, but never mind that now. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, it's handy, huh? And I don't have to re-talk about what's inside in WP:THIS and WP:THAT. It's all clear there. How about if you read WP:V first? That's more handy word for you. ;-) Sorry, we work with guidelines and rules. If somebody put WinRAR or others to an AfD debate, then I'll give my opinion about them there. Dekisugi (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is getting so silly, but here we go. I did read WP:V first, but I just don't see how this article is supposed to violate it. You simply claim it does. Your argumentation goes like this: "X violates WP:V. / But why? What's the difference between X and Y, which obviously does not violate WP:V? / I won't tell you, and shut up about Y, you're violating WP:WAX." So let's have a look at WP:V then. It states, in a nutshell, that "readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". Quite apart from the fact that this article doesn't contain material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, at least one such source is provided in the article. It seems to be reliable enough for WinRAR, so I don't see why it shouldn't be deemed reliable enough for this article.Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why? You just stated yourself. There is no single reliable sources in the article, by the time I'm writing, that support WP:V. None. Zip. Niks. Nothing. That's it. Only one source of a bulk review with other softwares that you added later, but it is not enough to support the inclusion of this article in WP. Dekisugi (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

This article seems to me to provide valuable information for those seeking information on free software that handles a large number of proprietary formats. I found it *very* useful, for I got the information that I wanted quickly and concisely - avoiding the need to search the Internet for such a program. I was redirected here from the "ISO" page - and found out exactly what I wanted to know! That is what an encyclopedia is for, isn't it? Fast, accurate, useful information. I say keep the article (or, if must be, it could be combined with other compression/decompression articles. But I prefer it as a stand-alone, because it eliminates the need to search and evaluate a long article in order to get the information I need.)

81.184.56.47 (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a rehash of the web page. People might find being pointed to the web page more helpful. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a rehash of the program's website then why didn't I find any mention of downsides on that website, but did so in the article? Also, as long as the article doesn't violate copyright, is neutral and verifiable, it doesn't really matter whether or not it's a "rehash". Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (the problems of it can be verifed by checking the official forum [for the threads in it are release notes, wishlists, bug reports and questions] or downloading and using the software). Also Softpedia rated IZArc five stars (see IZArc Review - IZArc Download).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:12, 1 February 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.