Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDex

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 No Consensus to delete so kept. Those citing reliable sources are encouraged to add them to the article since it is currently rather lacking. Eluchil404 07:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CDex

CDex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's good software (I use it regularly), but it's non-notable due to lack of third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. The PROD tag was deleted with the rationale that it has WP:BIGNUMBER downloads. This does not confer notability. Sandstein 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 17:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lacking reliable published secondary sources. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-12t18:05z
• Delete Like said before, no references, and plus, it's written like an ad. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - is actually covered by third parties. Is sufficiently notable anyway per its large usage.--Chealer 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Where are these sources in the article? Sandstein 05:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was simply talking about coverage that confirms notability.--Chealer 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - while many highly specialized programs are inherently unknown outside their user base, this one seems to have a sufficiently high number of third party reviews to qualify as being notable. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Being mentioned on websites does not suffice. We need substantial coverage by reliable sources. Google hits are not enough (WP:GHITS). Sandstein 05:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Here are a few links that i found pretty easily:

• Softpedia (editor, not user review)
• Sonic Spot
• IT Week
• After Dawn (very popular audio/video site, in case Sandstein never heard of it)
• PC Magazine

CDex is also mentioned in a number of magazines and sites you might have heard of:

• PC World
• PC World again
• Rolling Stone
• CDRinfo (again, very popular site for those tech-aware) (mentioned as CD-Ex)

You will find dozens of these once you ACTUALLY LOOK for them.

Regarding WP:BIGNUMBER, shouldn't Wikipedia policies be used in conjuction with common sense? CDex is 8th in alltime top downloads on SourceForge. Number EIGHT for crying out loud. 32,836,851 downloads without counting 3rd party sites. Would you dare say any other software of that top 10 is not "notable enough"? The criteria being it's not covered in your local paper or what? This is ridiculous... Staniol 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I would dare, if their articles cite no sources. Those you provide are not bad, even though some mention the program only in passing. Remember, it is up to you to find these sources, and to actually put them in the article, if you want it kept. The burden of proof for sourcing is always on those wanting to keep content; see WP:V. Sandstein 05:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is a difference between WP:V and WP:N. If you are simply concerned by the article's accuracy, it would be best to tag the article {{refimprove}} or put a few {{fact}}-s.--Chealer 01:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this article a looong time ago. I think it's quite valid on Wikipedia, but I stopped following the WP:STUFF 2 years ago. Guaka 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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.