Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTP Voyager

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. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FTP Voyager

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

Appears to be non-notable software. Article consists mostly of a feature list in a pretty promotional language. The history section lists an award that the program won, but the cited domain is now taken over by spammers. Google searches don't show notability supported by reliable sources. — daranz [ t ] 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — daranz [ t ] 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry in advance about the formatting, but here's some rebuttal:

Notability: has about 5 million download as per CNET: http://download.cnet.com/FTP-Voyager/3000-2160_4-10317302.html
Article format and tone: not sure what's especially pretty about this, but would love a reference to some acceptable software articles for comparison
Alternate award link: http://web.archive.org/web/20100207093803/http://sia.sic.org/2007awards.php (Wayback machine)
Other possible awards:
- Tucows 5 out of 5 cows (current at least through 2011)
- About.com 5 out of 5 stars (current at least through 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.197.130 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- While I don't expect there to be a lot of secondary sources on FTP software, which tends to be somewhat of a niche, there were less than I expected. Once Rhino's own primary sources are removed, the remaining secondary sources are passing references and a few knowledge base tutorials. There were a few small reviews, which tended to be one to two paragraphs in length and usually part of a comparison piece. The award isn't notable either (as its now defunct status shows). -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comparison of FTP client software has a lot of articles with similar levels of sourcing. a13ean (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (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.