Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of backup software


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of backup software

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Hopeless. Ghost is imaging software, and none of the ex-Veritas or Legato products are mentioned. Virtually all commercial backup software has most of the arbitrarily chosen features listed (e.g. compression, automation), and the list of platforms is hopelessly incomplete and does not indicate the things which are actually important in selecting backup software, such as vss integration, host agent availablility for AIX, Solaris and the like, VMware support / integration (and I guess VCB), data deduplication, distributed operation, delegated user privileges and self-service restore, management of multiple recovery point and recovery time objectives, management reporting and analysis, media ageing and rotation - in fact it's close to impossible to come up with a table comparing backup products which is not classified by price band and market, or hopelessly sparse and unreadable. The list is also unsourced. I think this is more like a school project scratchpad than an article. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is practically no way to complete this list. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate selection with respect to both products and features. A comprehensive table could only be constructed by original research using primary sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Why was this nominated 15 minutes after initial creation?  There are certainly other software comparison articles that have been accepted on WP & I don't see why we couldn't have on on backup software.  I'm very surprised to see this WP:BITE by JzG! --Karnesky (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. None of the problems raised by JzG and followers require the article to be deleted. The topic is not anymore WP:INDISCRIMINATE than any other software comparison table in Wikipedia. The fact that the table is incomplete is not a valid reason to delete it. You can easily verify most of the features from the software articles linked. Adding citations to a table like that is impractical. Listing self-evident features of software is not OR. VG &#x260E; 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The reason given is an improvement argument, not a deletion reason. These complaints, as well as sourcing issues, can be addressed - why not give the article a chance, or do it yourselves? SMC (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consumer guide material, not encyclopedia material. Drawing up these comparisons seems to be original research. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete wow, this will be a magnet for original research and personal points of view. Impossible to properly source for "comparisons", only features.  Regardless of how old the article is, the premise is fatally flawed and can never pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE - P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate how this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The features used in the table head are usually mentioned in the articles for each product. VG &#x260E; 16:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We literally have hundreds of such comparison on Wikipedia. Many software comparisons in Wikipedia have survived deletion.  I think the only reason why this may not is because it is essentially a very new stub.  There is no reason that these need to be based on original research--there are WP:RS that describe the features of products & even WP:RS comparisons that may be used as a basis for the article.  Can those calling for deletion please say whether they would support recreation of this article, assuming that it was more comprehensive in the products and features that it included and assuming that it was properly sourced? --Karnesky (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply In general, I am against "comparison" articles of current products. Comparing the tactics of two war generals, ok.  Comparing historical events, ok.  Comparing products is not the same, and leads to what I complained of.   If you want to nominate other comparison type articles that use current products, I will be happy to vote delete on those as well.  I don't have the time to dig them all up myself.  But just because other stuff exists, that doesn't justify this article staying.  There are many problems, such as "what features do you list as being compared", which is indescriminate or original research, before you even start writing. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here, I found for you, go ahead an nominate it: Comparison_of_handheld_game_consoles. VG &#x260E; 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article isn't the same (by ANY stretch of the imagination), and being a smart ass doesn't make you right, it just makes you a smart ass. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what makes it different? This is a good faith question. Perhaps we can draft some guidelines for acceptable comparisons, like we have for lists. VG &#x260E; 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, i will bite. The console article covers existing AND historical hardware, which adds a great deal of context and information that can't be found in the individual articles.  The console article compares things like RAM, media, screen size, etc. which are physical traits shared by all the items and not subject to personal opinion.  The software article (like any software article) contains software features, which are not universal across all brands.  (ie: if brand $x has a feature, do you list it and show that brand $x is the only one that has it?  What about $y feature?  WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT FEATURE $Z!!111  I can see it now, NPOV issues out the wazoo.).  There are a lot more consoles to list and compare, further justifying the article.  The software article ALSO will always be out of date as new versions come out or are discontinued, while the console article is simply added to, meaning once the hardware is obsolete, the information isn't.  This isn't true with the software.  In the backup software instance, the information has zero historical importance, even if it is WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL to some.  In short, they are really really different because one is hardware, one is software, so you really can't compare the two article types.  That doesn't take in the consideration WP:OTHERSTUFF.  I would be against an article comparing Linux and Windows for the same reason.  I haven't taken the time (and won't) to hunt them all down, but will !vote delete when I see them.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One last quick note: it is my opinion that existing policies already cover this, and no new policy or guideline is needed.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N, WP:V; possible spam magnet, etc. Biruitorul Talk 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, update and expand. The difficulties raised above are only editing questions. We d include such comparisons for notable classes of software. What a consumer guide does in addition, and we do not, is make recommendations and include ephemeral matter such as prices and where to buy the products. . DGG (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.