Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashGet (2nd nomination)
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 of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable download manager, also give advices to getting rid of advertisements without paying the shareware software --Melaen 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashGet —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 03:20Z
- Keep, seems notable, at least as much as most of the other download managers with entries in Category: Download managers. Else merge to Download manager. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 03:17Z
- I've cleaned up the article [1]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 03:27Z
- Weak delete as non-notable. Stifle 23:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advert Incognito 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Plug: Please come develop a guideline for articles such as this: see Wikipedia:Notability (software) --Perfecto 06:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on principle. Even though I feel that FlashGet is popular and well-known enough to be written about, this article is just about empty and reads somewhat like an ad. Zunaid 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's widely-used software, and had a lot of support in AFD six months ago. Seem like more than an advertisement to me, esp. after Quarl's treatment. ×Meegs 10:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have a philosophical problem with relists purely for the sake of taking another shot. If there's something new, thats one thing. in this case, still seems all the original AfD arguments can apply. (sorry, forgot to sign in) Phantasmo 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well-known download manager. See also FlashGot, the Firefox plugin (which you shouldn't think about nominating for deletion either). Rhobite 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as it is a well-known and widely used software. Carioca 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cleanup if it sounds like an ad. FCYTravis 05:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it's reasonably well-known software, but definitely improve the article. If it remains in its current form, it's hardly encyclopaedic and should be deleted. - Axver 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as rather notable piece of software. I don't think it was the first "download accelerator" but it was probably the first to get it right. Its Site Explorer feature was very good, too. Cyde Weys 05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-known, been around a while. Article could be improved, but deletion certainly won't do that. -- Jake 05:44, 25 January 2006 (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.