Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZTreeWin

ZTreeWin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nommed for PRODDEL in 2010 for "No evidence of notability. No references given." Tag removed. It's been 15 years and there's still no significant coverage. Article reads like an advertisement. Rcfische2 (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcfische2 (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a renomination, previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Altap_Salamander. Rcfische2 (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete googling does not lead me to believe there is something notable here

Czarking0 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. There's like a couple sentences in one PCMag issue and that's the best I could find. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Wikipedia only exists for current events/products? I see there is a page for Xtree, a product that has been dead for decades. ZTree is the replacement and is currently available and supported in all modern versions of Windows. IBMJunkman (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, old and even obscure software has its place here. I'm not going to advocate for deleting say Atari DOS, because it has significant coverage, even though it's over twice my age. XTree has significant coverage as well. I can search for it in archives of InfoWorld and PC Mag and see that it's a piece of software which was very relevant in its time. When I look at ZTreeWin, I see an article basically unchanged since 2005 with no sources to establish its use. I've personally got no vendetta against this software, but it's important to remove articles that don't follow notability guidelines because consistently applying them stops Wikipedia from becoming a free ad agency for every software company on Earth.

Rcfische2 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain. [Please be tolerant--I'm a newbie to editing but a many-times-a-day Wikipedia user for many years. My most recent Wikipedia edit was about 10 years ago (now apparently lost). Conflict of interest: I've been a ZtreeWin user for many years.] I agree that "notability" is the issue. "Notability", of course, is a judgement call. I also agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be a free ad agency ... for anybody, let alone "every software company on Earth." And I agree the article is poorly written. But: ZtreeWin is, right now, a valuable app for a small-but-enthusiastic niche group of users who are quite active and who communicate at https://groups.io/g/ZtreeWin. But ZtreeWin users don't "publish" articles that would justify a decision of "notable". (I'm a retired professor; is this another case of "publish or perish"?) ZtreeWin has not changed significantly in years and probably won't change--it just works. Gee, I wish that were true of many of the other apps I use that are unquestionably "notable", but also "notorious" for buggy updates and frequent hacks. If (1) the Wikipedia editors decide to retain the article, and (2) someone suggests that I do it, and (3) I can get a bit of mentoring to push me in the right direction then I will volunteer to edit and improve the article. (For example, while ZtreeWin runs beautifully under Windows 10 (soon to be extinct), there are issues and solutions for running it under Windows 11. The article should mention these issues and give links to web sites with solutions. And, of course, it shouldn't read like an ad.) I can't do anything about "notability" except to note that ZtreeWin is "truly notable" to a relatively small number of avid users--but I'm not going to publish an article somewhere that would be a credible source that documents that "notability" and thereby save this Wikipedia article. Prof.Ron1702 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the article needs more information to note why it is of significance. I have added a Historical Significance section and it could do with improvements so please add more. I have also changed some of the technical terms like "logging" which referred to refreshing the file list. Please helo to improve this page by adding and improving the current content GrandPoohBah (talk) 113:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]