Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JDownloader

Add links
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 no consensus. The keep arguments mostly amount to liking it and it being popular, but the sources offered do serve to give some substance to the argument. Fences&Windows 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JDownloader

[edit]
JDownloader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product. Sources found in typical search Google news, books, scholar, do not show any significant sources. Short product announcements, comments to other news articles, and was used once in an academic setting (ie, an academic paper that is not about jdownloader). These insignificant sources do not hold up to a notability claim. Miami33139 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand I find Wiki entries on software packages very useful as an unbiased reference. Also this software has interesting plugins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.197.136 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their lack of a marketing department is not a reason to call it a Non-notable software product. If you take a look at their support forum with 10,416 threads and 56,432 posts, you will see that is a quite popular program. Besides I expect lawsuits: Bypassing security mechanisms (CAPTCHA can be explained as a security mechanism) is illegal in many countries. 212.182.183.12 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see this program as notable (as one of the first download managers to automatically download a whole plethora of rapidshare/related web hosting sites), however, I don't think that WP:CRYSTAL on breaking captcha/lawsuits follows policy. I've seen JDownloader mentioned on quite a few sites, and I think its notability is around that of DownThemAll. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show this with reliable sources instead of guesswork? Miami33139 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that lots of citations which theoretically show relevancy in its particular field don't meet "reliable source" guidelines. JDownloader did win Brothersoft's editor's pick award (whatever that means). It is also in it's top downloads, above Orbit downloader (which is notable iirc) [1]ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also on AOLTech Download Squad [2]. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this program is notable (do you need the number of user in its fields ? This is maybe one of the most used downloader : and crossplatform : there is not much under linux) : or do you use a fallacious argument in order to erase a page that don't match your ideology ? I just try to understand : this is a supposition ok. The software is a legal software : it is the use of the user that is sometimes illegal. It depends on the content : If you use jdownloader in order to download free and open content, or private contents : it is totally legal. You know you can use free software and do illegal things : do you want to erase windows , ubuntu etc ? you can download free and open source bittorent : hope this is clear now. You see : I think it could be usefull to add a little word on legality on all this softwares ( but you cannot erase what you think is "bad"). --Kalki101 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusion policy is based on verified, neutral, information that is not original. Information must be based on reliable sources. It must be shown to be notably important and that is not based on whether it is legal or how many times it has been downloaded. Miami33139 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that some article cannot be "verified" , most of the real counterculture article cannot be verified : because they are not in the mainstream culture, and nobody in the mainstream will change their position on them. And does verified and neutral mean : unification ? Totalitarism : only one way of thinking ? YOU see I think this need to be understood : rules like "verified" or neutral OK ! But you need to accept sometimes article cannot be "verified" (by the mainstrean media) : neutrality does not mean : follow the sheeple. In term of features and under linux : this is the best downloader. ( is it a non-notable software ? I think you should change your argument : [1], --Kalki101 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fantastic software! --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep seems popular. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK! That should make it very easy to reference that popularity to reliable sources! Miami33139 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK BUT WHAT SORT OF SOURCE ? Do you want to debate or do you want to force your decision ? Can you answer my last post ? Or you don't want to, because there is a "political" polemic ? (and you are smart , so you don't want to speak about what is the real problem !) I think i am right when i say this is totaly about "conformism" and what is not conform : so this is ideology : i don't think ideology and conformism, and some sort of totalitarism, means neutrality ?(first paradox) The question is : Counterculture articles are accepted in wikipedia or NOT !? We should add an exception to "verified". ( or do you want wikipedia to be just the "mainstream culture", the mainstream encyclopédia ? And don't you see a paradox : an "open" encyclopedia that is not open to all culture and all political choices ? yes this could be or become totalitarism : so choose well ! (second paradox))--Kalki101 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's popular and useful but nothing I could find that would satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability, including the software-specific essay Wikipedia:Notability (software). Terrierhere (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I could see, it's the de facto standard on online forum communities exchanging megaupload and rapidshares links, but I don't think you'll find a NYT article on this to support my statement, you'll have to know how the communities work form the inside. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not write articles from original research. If information requires knowledge on how something works from inside a small community it doesn'tbelong on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know very well Wikipedia's policies and its position on original research, that why I said "I don't think you'll find a NYT article on this". However, it has 2,620,000 results on Google and more than 4 million on Bing, which pretty much proves that it's not par of a "small community", as you suggested. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Yes, I see some WP:POPULAR arguments being made. Please avoid those. I searched Google Books [3] and found nothing. I also searched Google News [4] and found a few hits but nothing of substance that would indicate encyclopedic notability. Not in a language that I can understand, anyhow. I say "without prejudice" only because perhaps some reliable/non-trivial sources may surface, but thus far into the discussion I have not seen any. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you don't understand Spanish, it's not a good reasons not to count those articles. Besides, according to this reasoning, why would a program such as Ktorrent, that has less Google results, less mentions on Google news, be worthy of a Wikipedia article? Ktorrent is just one of the examples, there are many programs form the KDE desktop environment that, if we apply your reasoning, will results unworthy of an entry. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I dislike WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but at the same time, who expects a software to be mentioned in google books? There are many software's that are notable in their respective fields (JDownloader being one of them) that do not have "reliable" resources by wikipedia "standards", but if you are to go to their respective communities, you will be able to see that they are notable. This is not "unverifiable" at all because any individual can go verify it. As for original research, I personally find the term laughable because anyone writing an article on an unfamiliar topic will indubitably do original research by looking at websites relevant to the topic. In regards to WP:RAP and WP:IAR however, I do stick by my keep vote for the sake of the encyclopedia. I've seem enough software articles deleted from the wiki because they didn't have "reliable sources" (or considered so by the mainstream) and other completely rubbish software kept due to artificial attempts to game the system (reactionary self published "citations"). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I'm guessing my two citations I offered earlier weren't "reliable, verifiable" enough. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another two tidbit about Jdownloader [5] and [6]. Again, one can argue it's not "reliable" as it is a blog, but really, on stuff that's usually used for grey things (ex. circumventing CAPTCHA), usually they are left to be mentioned in such blogs, and ghacks is referenced by other websites/"news" sources that google uses. Not so sure on filesharefreak (only know that torrentfreak is a semi-reliable source), but that one seems to imply notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper article (not sure, but pretty certain by the looks of main page): [7] ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the french ubuntu documentation [1], and its translation [2].--Kalki101 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy keep. The nominator's arguments were trash, sorry for being blunt. --Belchman (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As trashy as an argument without sources? sorryfor being blunt. Miami33139 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources, WP:SOFIXIT or tag with {{notability}} and {{unreferenced}} instead of deleting articles. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you. This is why we have WP:IAR, even though this article, according to sources found by me and pcap, is clearly notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:47, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JDownloader&oldid=1069815234"