Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeFileSync

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. Sandstein 13:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FreeFileSync

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

A product of no demonstrable significance. Sources lack intellectual independence, they are affiliated or based on press releases, with the exception of one product review which is not primarily about the product but is a side by side comparison of multiple products. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No indication of notability per Wikipedia standards. A supposed CNET.com quotation in the reception section (the only source cited there) is sourced to a link which leads to a download page - for FreeFileSync along with multiple similar applications. Even if the quoted text appeared there (it doesn't), this would hardly be a legitimate third-party review, since websites offering things for download are inevitably going to praise them. And a search on the web finds little commentary but blogs, and comparative reviews discussing similar software. The only other commentary on the application seems to revolve around alleged malware content. Lacking meaningful in-depth third-party commentary of the type WP:RS mandates, any article can only either be promotional guff, or negative content regarding malware. Neither of which constitute a valid Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:130:351B:68D3:4C6D (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While researching another issue (which I will not mention here because it has nothing to do with the question of whether this article should be deleted) I did a lot of searching, and I found that what little coverage exists consists of:
- Download descriptions from websites which clearly offer for download every program they can find (including a couple of programs I wrote years ago which might have three users total if you count my mother).
- Discussions about how the author has tried to monetize the program by offering a super-duper extra-features version if you pay him.
- Discussions about how the author has tried to monetize the program bundling malware that installs things on your computer without your permission
- Promotional material obviously written by the author of the program.

What I did not find was anything that satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of depth-of-coverage required by WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or searches of passing WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found articles about FreeFileSync on PCWorld, Framasoft (in french), CNET, MakeUseOf, LifeHacker, TechRepublic, MakeTechEasier and others.

Also, maybe not an indicator of notability, but at least, popularity: on AlternativeTo, FreeFileSync has (a lot) more "likes" (for what it's worth) than all of the alternatives, including rsync, Beyond Compare, IPFS, GoodSync, SyncBack, SparkleShare, SyncToy, Allway Sync and many others. (Note that all of the alternatives I've just mentioned have their own Wikipedia article).

(BTW, I'm new here, I hope I understood the purpose of this page correctly). StayAwhileAndListen (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — StayAwhileAndListen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! regarding the above, you might want to read Wikipedia:Notability (software). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOFT; as mentioned by User:StayAwhileAndListen, multiple notable reviews seem to exist. --Stempelquist (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"An app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article." --WP:NSOFTWARE

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to whether the coverage in PCWorld, CNET and Framasoft is enough to establish notability, since the other sources seem to be blogs or otherwise insignificant. Three sources are technically multiple sources. WP:NSOFTWARE also states: "A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria: [...] It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." WP:CORP simply states: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Wouldn't you say that criterion is met in this case? I may very well be wrong here, I don't have a feeling of the precedent. By the way, I'm not entirely sure FreeFileSync classifies as a commercial product (do the donation edition and ads equal commercial?). If it isn't regarded as commercial, "it is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." --WP:NSOFTWARE. Also, now that I have the opportunity: Your research into the program's OpenCandy component is very fine work!--Stempelquist (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSOFT specifies "multiple [...] reliable reviews by [...] independent publishers" as stated above. Such reviews do exist. There may not be enough material for an FA, or even a GA, but there's enough for an article at least somewhat useful to a reader. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgement call, and I understand those who disagree, but even after reviewing everything above, it it still my considered opinion that it isn't quite notable enough. It is close, but not quite close enough. I am fine with whatever the consensus turns out to be. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the sources mentioned above, Ubuntuusers lists and describes features and uses of FreeFileSync. Ubuntuusers.de is a common source of help for german linux users. Heljastrom (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Heljastrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would like someone who speaks the language to confirm this, but the above reference looks like one of the many places where the creator of FreeFileSync has tooted his own horn. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2018 (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.