Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZX2C4 Instant Messenger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --- Deville (Talk) 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZX2C4 Instant Messenger

It looks like 203.184.30.170 wanted this page deleted, but didn't tag it with {{subst:afd}}. Anyway, it's an article about software that fails to assert notability. Delete. MER-C 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a real product with heavy real world usage. For that reason, the notice will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.41.117 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 October 2006
    • I've reverted the removal of the AfD notice from this page. Valrith 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 19:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)*
    • Addendum: the article is also a copyright violation from [1]. Valrith 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The author of that page releases the text of the front page as open text, as mentioned in the terms of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.43.117 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 October 2006
        • Actually, that is untrue; as of 21:44Z 3-Oct the page shows a copyright notice at the bottom. Valrith 21:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • [2] See section 7, last sentence. It is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.43.117 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 October 2006
            • So you've got two incompatible licenses listed for the text that is used in this article. I don't know what a court would do with that... Valrith 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
              • The considers it in this way: the site is governed by the copyright on the bottom, with the exception of any additional terms, as presented in terms.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zx2c4 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 October 2006
  • Delete, very little web presence. Punkmorten 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this project has made large headway in the marketplace. It only recently has started to become prevalent as a public service on the internet, which is why there is little web presence. This is a highly legitimate product and should not be removed from Wikipedia. User:ZX2C4 21:41 2 October 2006 (UTC)*
  • Keep. Looks good to me. Although it saddens me that user 'ZX2C4' is voting to 'DO NOT DELETE', this does make it look fairly suspicious lol. THE KING 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. —Xezbeth 08:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep Naturally ZX2C4 wants to keep it up, so that is just to be expected. Let us look at the facts of the matter: ZIM is a real product with many, many users. User:THE KING is right.
  • Delete advertorial and lacking in reliable third-party reporting, or even much in the way of ghits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; crystalballism, WP:SOFT, WP:RS, etc. ergot 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Again, I assert that ZIM is a legitimate enterprise product. The company receives many calls and e-mails per day regarding licencing of the software to major firms. It does not have much Internet presence due to the nature of the product; it is designed for private use in companies, and the public server is only for demos and testing. The article is written as no such advertisement. If the language is written in a non-wiki way, then it needs to be flagged for cleanup, not for deletion. I assure you ZIM is legitimate. All above claims of illegitimacy are based in mere speculation and are completely unfounded.
No assuring us is not the way this works - you need non-notable sources to indicate this is worth an article. As for not reading like an advert - surely you jest? Looking past all of these features which eloquently enhance ease-of-use, the most remarkable feature of ZIM is it's advanced file transfer technology. Where other messengers fail to work with firewalls, are slow because of uncompressed data, or do not integrate with the users' computers well, ZIM excels. --Charlesknight 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It is irrevelant as to whether or not it is written like an advertisement. If it is in advert form, then the article must be cleaned up, not removed. As for credible sources: this project used to be a sourceforge featured project: [3]. Here are SF news archives: [4] and [5]. Here it is written about on a popular gaming forum: [6]. There is an article about it on zoominfo: [7]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.43.117 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2006
Let's see 1 is a link to sourceforge - anyone can jump a few hoops and get on there - entirely non-notable. The second and third are just sourcefog logs - so what? The third is someone basically saying "hey dude - try this piece of software, me and two mates are trying it!" - big wow. The article listed in the 4th link says This summary was automatically generated using information found on the Internet. and is purely descriptive. --Charlesknight 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the 4th link: it shows that there is information on the internet about it if the bot was able to obtain it.
  • Keep ZIM is a real product that is vastly used in the business world. Its web presence is low and this is unfortuanate, but this does not change the fact that it is wide spread. As for sourceforge: look at how long this product has been on sourceforge. One cannot just jump a few hoops to get on sourceforge. One must undergo a large review process. Sorceforge logs are of news releases that sourceforge published. The third one, yes I'll agree, is just a couple of script kiddies using the software, but after all, the internet presense of ZIM is for script kiddies; the wide spread usage of this in the business world is done over the telephone and with real material. User:65.189.32.198 3 October 2006 4:39 PM (EST)
Great, you can list 3 or 4 of the coporations that are currently using this beta product. This is really really straightforward "I heard", "I think" and "I know" do NOT cut it on Wikipedia - Go read this and then you will be aware of what is required. --Charlesknight 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This article passes the tests. Charlesknight -- let's keep ego out of this, please. 72.49.43.117 20:45, 2 October 2006
let me get this straight - this is an amazing in-use product "vastly used" in the business world but the designer is asking Do you think it is at all marketable? I'm interested in the opinion of the intelligent tech savy community, not just my mother who tells me it's great. I see.... --Charlesknight 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is A) not a reliable source, B) tells nothing about the actual usage, and C) may very well be an imposter. Please charlesknight, you said above that the forum wasn't reliable. Do not contradict yourself. Stop with your ego and illogical conclusions. 21:28, 2 October 2006 72.49.43.117
Where on the webpage does it say what you have quoted? It is not there.
Well that was not a very bright move - all you have done is indicate that you must be a sock of the user User:ZX2C4. Many thanks for outting yourself. --Charlesknight 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? How is there a correlation between the zx2c4 of wikipedia and of the fourms? What text was changed? Photoshopping is a popular device. Regardless of any correlation that could be met, a logical argument (as the KEEPs present) is logical regardless of bias.
  • Keep Zim is indeed a real product and has a number of users already. Zim was created in the most professional of ways to enhance the online expereince of business users in the midwest. It seems charlesknight is trolling out with logic. 24.29.21.137
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.