| Revision as of 19:28, 27 September 2009 editMiami33139 (talk | contribs)6,175 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:48, 27 September 2009 edit undo83.254.210.47 (talk) →SmartPAR: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| **'''Comment''' Uninformative is subjective and is not a valid reason for deletion. The article includes a book as a reference so please feel free to further improve the article. The links seem to work fine for me, with the exception of the link that I marked as a {{tl|dead link}}. I certainly don't see anything resembling "spam" there. --] (]) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | **'''Comment''' Uninformative is subjective and is not a valid reason for deletion. The article includes a book as a reference so please feel free to further improve the article. The links seem to work fine for me, with the exception of the link that I marked as a {{tl|dead link}}. I certainly don't see anything resembling "spam" there. --] (]) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' One mere mention in one book is not notable. <small>No, Tothwolf, I didn't follow you here. I followed JBsupreme. Am I stalking him too?</small> ] (]) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' One mere mention in one book is not notable. <small>No, Tothwolf, I didn't follow you here. I followed JBsupreme. Am I stalking him too?</small> ] (]) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Numerous references, software is still used. ] (]) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:48, 27 September 2009
SmartPAR
- SmartPAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE as this is a non-notable freeware app. JBsupreme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Are you kidding me? This is an abandoned piece of software that the original author has considered obsolete - and we have an article explaining this? This is not what we are for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)- Change !vote to keep on account of Tothwolf's work, and on account that the nom seems to be on a crusade against software that, if not for what's provided for in WP:IAR, should not be here. Besides, I'd be a hypocrite to keep my delete !vote here, given circumstances, and vote a keep !vote over on Joe's Own Editor. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I've rewritten this stub article and added references. Notability is not temporary. The nom was acting in bad faith in nominating this article for AfD as he was already aware of a reliable source that covers this subject. This book is linked in the Deletion Review that JBsupreme initiated after he did not like the outcome of the Parchive AfD:
Wang, Wallace (2004-10-25). "Finding movies (or TV shows): Recovering missing RAR files with PAR and PAR2 files". Steal this File Sharing Book (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 164–167. ISBN 1-59327-050-X. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)- Looks like passing coverage to me. Not honestly qualified as "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable third party, let alone multiple citations of it. Oh, and thanks for the strawman argument and assuming good faith. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like notability to me, particularly when combined with everything else that can be found via Google. As much as you are unhappy with Parchive, put down the stick already, that horse ain't moving anymore. (Note that nominating the other related article which is also covered in the same book immediately after making the above comment was probably not a good move on your part either.) --Tothwolf (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like passing coverage to me. Not honestly qualified as "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable third party, let alone multiple citations of it. Oh, and thanks for the strawman argument and assuming good faith. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I think the article is as uninformative as it can get. None of the External Links lead to the software's page--one is obvious spam. The software cannot be obtained in any easy way. The "old home" says it has a "new home" but the "new home" itself cannot be accessed. -- 85.133.201.70 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uninformative is subjective and is not a valid reason for deletion. The article includes a book as a reference so please feel free to further improve the article. The links seem to work fine for me, with the exception of the link that I marked as a {{dead link}}. I certainly don't see anything resembling "spam" there. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete One mere mention in one book is not notable. No, Tothwolf, I didn't follow you here. I followed JBsupreme. Am I stalking him too? Miami33139 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Numerous references, software is still used. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)