Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xarchiver
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 Delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Xarchiver
Non notable sofware product Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Let me admit from the start that I know nothing of Linux software, so I come into this discussion cold. When a Google search yielded 50,000+ hits, though, I thought that there must be something to this article. I've now spent about 20 minutes looking for articles that could be used as good notability support for Xarchiver. I didn't find any, although I found many, many comments from Linux users indicating the software is in relatively wide circulation, and is regarded as useful. I'm willing to try to filter out a few of the more substantial of these to add to the article, but I would much rather have someone do it who actually knows something about Linux. Please let me know if no more knowledgeable volunteers show up, and I'll get to work. (And, for those who don't already know it, note that "Xarchiver" is not the same as "Xarchive".) Tim Ross·talk 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another weak keep - Following Tim's reasoning, I tried a Google search and found myself fence sitting as well... I don't know much about Linux, but it seems like this article fits in here, despite the difficulty in finding good sources (although I spent all of two minutes looking, to be honest). I added in a brief mention from a magazine, but I'll be the first to admit that it's a pretty minor reference. While I usually interpret WP:V strictly, I feel that there's no harm in keeping an article here for what appears to be an important part of a fairly popular OS. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - if between us all we can find is a trivial mention, then I guess this probably isn't notable. Addhoc (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2007 (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.
