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 speedy keep, notability clearly established through a multitude of secondary sources. Krimpet (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7-Zip[edit]

7-Zip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This program is non-notable. A Google search reveals only download sites and the development page. The article was proposed for deletion, but the template was removed without explanation or substantial change. James 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Google search says almost 3 million entries for 7-Zip. Mentioned in 339 books. [1] -- Frap 21:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per criteria 2, the 'bullshit!1!' criteria. Results 1 - 10 of about 2,580,000 for 7-zip. (0.06 seconds) --ST47Talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - how did this even get here? Entro-P 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very notable --Darksun 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed - This client is extremely useful --Uberushaximus 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to be downloadable from thousands of websites, and the article has secondary sources to technically establish notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There's absolutely no consistency here - MagicISO, with more than a million hits on Google, thousands of download sites, a large number of review sites, is not notable, but this is? It doesn't make any sense. James 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Several comments on the user's talk page indicate that he is part of a group of people spamming "MagicISO" all over the site. "MagicISO" fails applicable guidelines, and this user doesn't seem to like that, meaning that this nomination was made in bad faith. 164.11.204.56 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  MagicISO was not deleted based on notability. It was deleted once as it read like an ad and then agin as it was recreated less than a day later. Please see WP:SPAM and the notability guideline Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I had nothing to do with the spam and this is unrelated. I'm just attempting to arrive at some consistency here.James 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please also see this essay, often referenced in deletion debates. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep As this was nominated for WP:POINT. 7-zip has multiple independent review, is notable because it is the reference implementation of the 7z compression format, and is bundled in multiple software collections (and p7zip is in multiple *nix distros). --Karnesky 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as bad-faith nom. DarkAudit 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy snowball keep per above. I have no reason to doubt notability here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD is not being handled according to WP:NPA or WP:AGF. This is not appropriate. I do not wish to get involved in the debate, but it goes too far to claim the editor nominated this for deletion on "bad faith." In addition, leaving abusive comments on the user's talk page is way, way over the line. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given all of the recent PRODs that James made to different programs today & his comments about the deletion of MagicISO, I don't see how anyone can think that he wasn't violating WP:POINT. --Karnesky 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that, which is why I struck my comments. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above. Btw, how are all those prods going to be handled? Just curious. Stellatomailing 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can remove a prod. if they think the article meets the guideline.DGG 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should treat the PRODs as if they were legitimate. Some of the PRODs have already been removed. I removed those from the programs that I knew were notable and non-spammy (mostly Linux apps). People familiar with the genre of cd/dvd burning/image software (particularly with proprietary/commercial apps on windows) should probably review James's edit history. --Karnesky 23:57, 28 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.