Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OptiPNG

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OptiPNG

OptiPNG (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)

I can't find

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  ping 07:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and expand, there's plenty of coverage for this widely-used program 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What coverage?
    talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep The program is widely used. You can see almost all the PNG Commons images were compressed with OptiPNG. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep People need a reliable source to find these kind of progams, objective information and a link to the home page. Having to rely on search engines only, people often arrive at "download sites" that most often only display ads. By chance they may download the desired program, or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.166.130 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Wikipedia is not a reliable source
    ping 11:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep: This software is widely used by many users at Wikipedia (for Wikipedia). Please do not tag delete tag on everywhere. Silverlife (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Portable Network Graphics: A cursory search in Google Books and Bing brought up results that suggests that not only the PNG optimization topic has received enough coverage, OptiPNG and its derivatives (e.g PNGCrusher) are commonly noted. Therefore, merging the articles would resolve the notability issue. Fleet Command (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Claiming that something is "widely used" without providing citations from reliable third party publications is rather pointless. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No option on whether this has
  WP:RS yet, but I wanted to mention that it's not a totally frivolous entry: OptiPNG has 369 hits on Commons and 372 in Article+Template+Category+File on en.wikipedia.org itself. Not sure if File search on en.wikipedia.org and File search on Commons overlapped. I use OptiPNG followed by PNGOUT as a matter of course before I upload a PNG, including on Wikimedia projects. --Closeapple (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - despite claims to the contrary, i dont believe that any reliable sources have been presented. 'widely used' is not verifiable statement without a reliable source Theserialcomma (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2010 (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.