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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total Commander[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General Notability Guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found lots of reviews: [1] from Chip, [2] and [3] from PC World, [4] from Tom's Hardware, [5] from Softpedia, [6] from The Economic Times. Some of these are a little brief, but there are more hits that I didn't include. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominating an article about an internationally well-known and wide-spread product such as Total Commander (aka Windows Commander), which is obviously notable by Wikipedia's standards (for a start, articles in 24 other WPs might give a hint) and which is regularly mentioned (and recommended) in computer magazines, for deletion is such a extreme waste of the precious time and energy of contributing editors, that it must be counted as destructive behaviour and vandalism and should be acted accordingly. We really should block single-purpose accounts who either don't do their homework before nominating articles for deletion or even deliberately want to get rid of a few articles out of low motives. We all make mistakes now and then, and we should be (and usually are) forgiving when someone make mistakes, but new accounts who have nothing better to do than nominating a series of long established articles about notable topics for deletion obviously aren't here to contribute anything useful to the project, they only waste resources and cause harm, so we should get rid of them without much ado. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search reveals this to be a notable program. CarnivorousBunny^talk 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 29 December 2015 (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.