Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ObjectDock

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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectDock

This article reads like an advertisement. I don't see anything encyclopedic about this unnoteworthy product. User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Application lacks notability, and if it is notable this has not been covered within the article. I seriously doubt that it has been the subject of significant reviews that would provide relevant

reliable sources being such a minor application. Thewinchester[User_talk:Thewinchester|^(talk)]] 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Object Desktop, the notable suite which it is a part of. the wub "?!" 09:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's specifically not a part of the Object Desktop package. Maybe to Stardock#WinCustomize? GreenReaper 03:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It makes sense to discuss this in context rather than on a page of its own. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. And yeah, I was a WP nublet when I wrote this. :P Cctoide 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —Over My Head 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ObjectDock was the first MacOS-X Dock simulator for Windows developed, has appeared in major print magazines more than once, and has over 3.5 million downloads to date (sources available for all claims) ; I certainly think it qualifies as a noteworthy product! :) As listed on ObjectDock's page, there is a list of reviews, articles and historial references available. While I do agree that the wiki entry lacks mention of this notability and should be improved, I would recommend taking a look before declairing it an unnoteworthy/mergeworthy topic. http://www.stardock.com/products/objectdock/reviews.html LateNight with JB 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the end of the day, this is $20 software, comparable in notability to a letter opener or a foot stool. However, the real purpose of this article is to provide a spammy link to the webpage of the vendor, which qualifies this article for Speedy Deletion.--Gavin Collins 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The program is freeware. It is one of the top 5 most popular desktop enhancements of all time according to CNET (see http://www.download.com/ObjectDock/3000-2341_4-10614600.html?tag=list). It was the very first dock program for Windows. It has a huge following. Arguing that a program with over 3.5 million downloads on Download.com alone isn't noteworthy makes no sense. Should we be deleting WinZip too? Also, why hasn't random humanoid also nominated much less known and newer dock programs that also have Wiki pages for deletion then too? TheWinchester - there was a review TODAY on ZDNet (http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-88148.html?tag=gald). It's definitely notable. Unbelieveable. Dragniol 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ObjectDock has two version one free and one not free the only difference between the two version: more options. The free version is really useful, and without time remaining. OD Free get the same support than the "Plus" version. It was the first dock tools for windows. It's one of the best Dock tools. and not only in one country but all around the world. Why deleted it? A free soft, with many features, good support, funny and useful. Would you like deleted "Microsoft Windows" it's not a freeware, isn't it? Quentin94 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ObjectDock is one of, if not the most popular dock programs out there today. As others have said here, ObjectDock has gained plenty of media coverage and has had featured downloads on many, many sites. The argument that this page is spam is quite ridiculous.IslandDog 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I created it was mostly spam. It remained that way for a while, and it's still rather spammy and ugly. It could definitely be improved. Cctoide 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say the quality of the article is as good as it could be. But anyone arguing that ObjectDock isn't a notable software program really has no business participating in a discussion on PC software. We're talking about one of the most popular programs on the Internet (more popular than Yahoo Widgets in terms of weekly downloads according to CNET, ZDNET, etc. and you don't see people suggesting that Yahoo Widgets isn't 'notable'). If someone isn't willing to make a legitimate stand alone article of ObjectDock then by all means, delete the entry. My objection is when some guy comes on and says it's a 'unnoteworthy' product which displays a total lack of knowledge on the topic. Draginol 23:50 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's notable, the article just needs a complete rewrite. --Android Mouse 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the measures of notability is whether the subject has gotten significant independent coverage. The ZDNet review is a full-bore photo walkthrough.[1] I'm going to add the link to the article—albeit as an external link, it's still referenced. Notability demonstrated. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...under my general reasoning that most software apps should be Wikified regardless of notability so that NPOV Wiki comparison lists (i.e., Bittorrent client) can aide readers otherwise stuck going to other places with, usually, hidden agendas. Chop spam out where present, but otherwise leave them alone.--Mike18xx 05:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. 128.158.145.51 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesnt read like an advertisement to me, and I went back to the revision as flagged for afd. Passes our software inclusion criteria, and WP isnt paper... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.Fred, there is ample evidence that this software product is notable. Yamaguchi先生 04:05, 20 June 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.