Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altap Salamander

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 all, although it was no consensus on some. I'd suggest a relist for a number of the five may be beneficial. Daniel Bryant 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altap Salamander

Delete Wikipedia is not a billboard for advertising commercial software. AlistairMcMillan 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles also exist solely to advertise commercial software:

Strong keep all five - they are all very widely used pieces of file management software (114,000, 56,900, 57,300, 83,500 and 246,000 Ghits respectively for those who play the Google count game), and all three articles have been repeatedly edited by multiple editors over two to three years, so it's not as if this is a batch of spam someone's chosen to post. (Even if they originated as spam, they certainly aren't now.) I don't see anything in any of the articles that could be construed as spam; all of them are purely technical "this is what the program is called; this is what it does; this is what makes it different" articles — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments. (1) XYplorer has been overwhelmingly edited by one editor, which at least for that article suggests advertising. (2) I could find no significant independent reviews of any of these pieces of software. (3) Thousands of Google hits don't mean anything if they are all simple listings on software directory sites like download.com or softpedia.com. AlistairMcMillan 00:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Altap Salamander is the one of the top file managers in respect to functionality and desing. If you are looking for review, try searching "Servant Salamander". The name has been changed very recently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prikryl (talk • contribs) 06:42, May 2, 2007 (UTC)

And? Still can't any real reviews of the product. AlistairMcMillan 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about these?

http://www.kickstartnews.com/reviews/utilities/servant_salamander_25_ksn.html

http://www.simplehelp.net/2006/10/11/10-windows-explorer-alternatives-compared-and-reviewed/#servsal

http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Servant-Salamander-Review-12761.shtml

--Prikryl 07:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But what you want to do is add these to the article. They don't do much good here. How about the other four articles I nominated, any care about them? AlistairMcMillan 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or do we not have entries on any commercial software...? Removing advertising hype from the article is a different matter 217.146.125.100 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or you would like to remove Total Commander or Windows as well, because it's not free? majkl 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with Windows is that it is notable software. There are thousands of credible articles and reviews about it that can be cited as sources. Hundreds of books have been written about it. Collectively millions of dollars have been spent in buying Windows. You really can't compare it to these comparatively trivial pieces of software. AlistairMcMillan 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using this software for several years. You want reviews? Google found many of them... And what about Total Commander? Do you still want to delete it, too? Where is the border between articles about software which will be deleted and which will not be deleted? majkl 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is notability. What makes these pieces of software notable enough to warrant having as article on them?

Please point us to these reviews you found on Google. All I could find was forum postings, which aren't reliable as sources, and comments on file directory sites like download.com, which again aren't reliable sources. Has it been reviewed in any magazines (PC World etc), has it been reviewed by a site like ArsTechnica? AlistairMcMillan 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On account of Altap Salamander - the new 2.5 version was released after 6 years! of work on 27th April 2007. I don't think 6 days (as today) are enough for the reliable sources to review software update after 6 years of development. → Zarevak 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... were previous versions not reviewed by anyone? AlistairMcMillan 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot vote as I'm biased towards Altap Salamander. But I'm for Keeeping the articles with rewrite. I just tried to rewrite history part of Altap Salamander article to remove of commercial stuff. Feature list still needs to be updated. → Zarevak 12:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these Entries It goes to far IMHO to charge articles that merely present information on successful commercial applications with "advertising". An article would have to be openly biased and one-sided to qualify as such. AlistairMcMillan's additional criterium of notability is somewhat problematic - any regular user of a particular program may well find it notable, whereas a non-user could not care less. To a certain degree, notability of software seems to be a consequence of marketshare, not necessarily quality and usefulness.

There are certainly more reviews of Windows Explorer than ZtreeWin or Altap Salamander, but that doesn't mean the former is a better filemanager. In the interesst of user choice, Wikipedia ought to present interesting alternatives to the established heavyweights in the software market. Both open-source and commercial ones. Textor 04:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an long-standing established guideline. If you think it is "problematic" you should discuss that on the appropriate talk page: Wikipedia talk:Notability. AlistairMcMillan 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we seem to be arguing about is rather the interpretation of Notability in this concrete case, not Notability as such. Do you want delete all references to software that is not market-dominating in its field? Then we might as well toss out the articles on WordPerfect and Abiword, because compared to Microsoft Word, they have a marginal share. Where do you want to draw the line? What you dismiss as comparatively trivial pieces of software may well be better filemanagers than a certain monopolists's OS-integrated product - otherwise, would there be so many satisfied users? Textor 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Wikipedia ought to present interesting alternatives to the established heavyweights in the software market." What are you smoking? This is an encyclopedia not a platform to level the playing field in the software market. Please see WP:NOT. K1ng l0v3 14:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not smoking. Please think about the consequences of deleting everything but the dominating application in its field: numerous entries like Comparison_of_file_managers or List_of_file_managers would become superflous, there'd be nothing left to compare. Dito for any other category of software: spreadsheets could be reduced to Excel, text processing to Word, email to Outlook. Some kind of encyclopedia that would be. Textor 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! The first argument for deletion was about advertising commercial software - I agreed that there was this problem so I updated the Altap Salamander article to be more encyclopedic. I don't see any reason, why to remove this articles based on Wikipedia:Notability - there are articles on much smaller pieces of software on wikipedia. Also these article names are so special that no user can find them unintentionaly.

I don't even see a justice about needing to have proper magazine review to have article about some software - I don't know if Altap Salamander had or had not any magazine coverage as I don't read any; but my friend's school project had once one page review in Czech version of CHIP magazine and I don't think his school project was notable as I think about Altap Salamander. It was just a nice tool the reviewer found usefull at the time. → Zarevak 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some notable czech reviews of Altap Salamander:

http://chip.cz/novinky/?clanek=3648 - Czech version of CHIP magazine - article from 2000
http://www.mvcr.cz/2003/casopisy/pol/0408/wolny_info.html - oficial magazine for Czech policemen by Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic - article from 2004
http://www.zive.cz/h/Uzivatel/AR.asp?ARI=124725&CAI=2105 - duel betwen Total Commander and Servant Salamander on one of the best czech online magazines - article from 2005

→ Zarevak 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am only familiar with ZTreeWin, but this program has a very enthusiastic user following, with its own Wiki [1]& User Forum. The entry was created by the users, as an addition to the Orthodox file manager, Comparison of file managers, List of file managers pages. (Incidentally List of file managers is also listed for deletion, but not Comparison of file managers).

The page is not advertising, although it supports & promotes ZTreeWin, which is an essential add on to Windows (how do Explorer users work when you can't even filter by extension).

If ALL File Manager entries are to be deleted, so be it, but it is unrealistic to selectively delete some, and leave others. --Ian 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ~ ~ ~ Why? Because Windows Explorer needs competitors, ZTREEWIN is an offshoot of the greatest file manager ever (XTREE), bar none. Since XTREE is an historical program, it's offshoot must need to be cross-referenced. I have several hundred other reasons, but this one will do for now. SourDough.Deacon / SourDough Deacon 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per iridescenti, the remainder of the comments will most likely be discounted anyhow. RFerreira 05:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per iridescenti. This is no shameless commercial plug; each of those pages links to a page that lists its competitors(!), including even a feature comparison chart! Vor0nwe 09:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Altap and ZTree, weak keep rest. I think Altap has enough external links that I'm willing to say it's fine as-is; the others could be cured by citing a few independent sources. I do not see an advertising bent to the articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2007 (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.