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 delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IZArc[edit]

IZArc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Kept in 2008, but many of the rationales would certainly not pass muster now. Of the sources cited, none actually establishes notability per WP:GNG - listings, blogs posts , a how-to, that kind of thing. The software itself is generic in nature and there is no evidence of widespread use (I am unsurprised by this, I have personally seen software lists from tens of thousands of computers all over the globe in the last ten years and have never once encountered it). Guy (Help!) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of many non-notable, free archivers. A few short reviews do not establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried a search myself and, among the 390,000 Google results, couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Just two. I also studied the first AfD and carefully study the irritated response by Jimmy Fleischer. He had introduced three sources as evidence, two of which were mere download listings. (Surprisingly, the number of Google results at that time was 414,000.) Also, the closure itself seems questionable since many of the participants had used very weak arguments, mostly appeals to usefulness. Looks like the last AfD closure was more of a vote count.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No good sources, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Computer magazines often compare IZArc with other file archiving utilities, e.g. WinZip. Editors can search Softpedia, PC Magazine, PC Computing, PC World and PC home Advanced to verify my comment.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they don't. Softpedia only lists it as a download, but there is no editorial review. PC World and PC Magazine don't even list it! PC/Computing never even had the opportunity to list it because it was folded in 2002. I didn't find a publication called "PC home advanced" at all, let alone search it! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review made by PC home Advanced can be found here: [1] (in Chinese). It argues that though IZArc supports plenty of archive formats in fact it is quite slow in compressing and decompressing ZIP archives. And since it has been frequently used by netizens I think that keeping this article will be quite useful for readers, since they may not know the fact that its compressing and decommpressing speed is slower than WinZip or WinRAR before downloading and installing it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another RS: [2].--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a mirror of Download.com and everything in it is author's own commentary. Seriously, your statements' factual accuracy is too poor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Download.com is a prestigious download site, and its editor's reviews can be used as RSes, thus [3] can be used as an RS. [4], [5], [6], [7] are also good RSes, since Should I Remove It? and TOPAttack are all informative commercial websites.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Download.com is a prestigious download site"! That's a weird way of saying it is pretty. But it is not "independent from the subject itself" which is required by WP:GNG; and it is definitely unreliable. 2008 Wikipedia consensus holds that reviews by Seth Rosenblatt are immature and unreliable; since then, Download.com no longer writes the reviewers' name.
• TOPAttack is one of the two valid coverages that I found. You are yet to find my other!
• Now, either you are writing all this to convince the closing admin or to convince me. If it is the former, no comments; but if it is the latter, I am afraid I have to say when you find yourself raiding the garbage dumps of the Internet, like some Chinese website and shouldiremoveit.com, I am more convinced that the subject is definitely not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no obvious significant coverage or any indication this is used by the wider world. For the majority of people, a zipfile is just a means to an end, something you double click on to get what you want - that's kind of it really. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient sourcing to meet GNG Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:11, 30 April 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.