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. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrostWire[edit]

FrostWire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article has been tagged as needing sources for 23 months. Existing sources consist of an article from "Digital Media Wire" and the one paragraph there is partially about Limewire, not Frostwire. The other reference is to the developer, most of which contains information about Limewire, not Frostwire. Google news search verifies that this software is popular with child pornographers but only in the sense of trivial mentions. Google books search shows many minor mentions that this is a fork of Limewire, but no significant sources about Frostwire. Miami33139 (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as attempts to turn out reliable sources have failed to turn up anything usable. However I've heard of it; it's got over 700k GHits...I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards delete on the first point. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needing sources is not a valid reason for deletion. On top of that, it is a widely known and used program that certainly has notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Needing sources is a core policy of Wikipedia. The very claim that "it is a widely known and used program that certainly has notability" is something that requires reliable sources. Please start reading our Verifiable and Notable policies. Miami33139 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to make a note of an error in your statement. WP:N is not a policy, it is simply a guideline. While we should follow it for a basis for deletion, it doesn't justify deletion in all cases. However in this case, it may apply. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read those policies and understand them very well. Notability is certainly a criteria for deletion, but there is a reason we tag articles. It's not a countdown to "ok for deletion" timer, its to A) categorize articles, and B) to inform the users that the information in the article is not verified. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Software has received reviews from the editors of CNET and Lifehacker [1] [2]. Creative Commons appreciated their effort to promote free licensing of music [3]. Not the best sources I know; if these are not good enough to show notability then please consider merging/redirecting the page to LimeWire#FrostWire because its linked from a number of pages[4] and little information is better than redlinks. --zvn (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting to Limewire is an excellent idea. If you want to get that done I will withdraw this deletion nomination. Miami33139 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Might as well play it out. If the article is deleted, then all its contents could be moved over to Limewire - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Zvn --SF007 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Software is a recognized and notable fork created in response to user needs and legal action, and nominator seems to be on an AfD kick. - Tzaquiel (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legal reasons of Limewire development do not show the notability from mainstream sources. If this is notable, please show the sources. Miami33139 (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, keep it civil please. One man's "AfD kick" is another man's "positive effort to clean up low-notability articles". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There's actually already a paragraph about this in the LimeWire article, but this article's got the sources. A merge which basically just dumps the references into the LimeWire article will be fine here. I don't see that letting this play out will result in any better courses of action: we need the references, but there's really not enough material which deviates from that in LimeWire to justify a split. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-recognized fork of a highly-notable software product. It's sufficiently distinct from Limewire that it should not be merged to that article. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well recognized can you please source that? Miami33139 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's difficult to find an excess of documentation for Frostwire's notability online, but from a personal standpoint (which I understand isn't admissible- still), I've heard plenty about this program on websites that follow tech buzz. It's popular among privacy advocates, and if it's acceptable to have a long article about every principal character in Twilight, I think it's certainly acceptable to have a small article about a relatively popular fork of a major P2P program. I don't think a lack of sources is sufficient reason to eliminate it entirely. It's just even better reason to improve the existing page. A deletion notice shouldn't be used like a club to force changes to an article. I think an "undersourced" tag would have been more appropriate.--Thecitrusking (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is clearly information from http://www.frostwire.com/?id=about that shows this is an actual program. It has a website with a reasonable deal of information on it. I don't see why there should be anything else needed for this project to at least have a page. It is also recognized as a reputable project by sourceforge, as proven by it's presence on their website. -- Endelig —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• • Wikipedia articles are required to be notable. Miami33139 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((notability)) can be used instead of deletion, which is reserved for topics where there is clearly no notability. That doesn't seem to be the case here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The end result of long term use of the notability warning is usually deletion. This AfD has still not addressed sources showing significant notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No but it has shown that clearly a number of people know of it enough to consider it notable, and that as such it is, regardless of whether some nobody software reviewer that we've never heard of in our lives has said "its notable" and published it on cnet. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Bad nom. I just added a number of references to article, there are more out there as well. Deja vu of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinf (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacAmp (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH, etc.--Milowent (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2009 (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.