Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DualBackup


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DualBackup

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited, and none found on searching. PROD was removed by an IP editor with teh edit summary "I propose to change PROD to CLEANUP and REFIMPROVE as software products may not have third-party references. Most information will be from their official websites (e.g. the Memeo and Zmanda pages". This is nonsense, as articles on software have the same requirement for independent sources to establish notability as any other articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the author has not established notability for the product. I can find no online English-language reviews of the product. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from article author - I created this article because it one of the free backup products I am using. The other one is SyncBack. I think the information in WP may be useful for other users too, so I spent some efforts to create the page. I understand that amount of effort is not a sufficient reason for a page to be kept in WP. It will be great if it can be kept for future improvement. Thanks for everyone's efforts to make WP a good knowledge base. - Seakskyk (talk) 4:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment again - I would like to write something about the software notability. For users that need to back up their data on-site for rapid data recovery and off-site to prevent data loss due to disaster such as fire, this product is notable. Unfortunately, it seems that none of the users are columnists of the New York Times. Opinions from backup software users will be appreciated. - Seakskyk (talk) 9:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment in reply Notability in the context of these discussions is defined by WP:N and other guidelines linked from there. This is absolutely different than the usual dictionary definition of "notability", and this leads to some confusion on a regular basis. To be clear, the purpose of WP:N isn't just about a product or person or whatever being "good enough" to be notable. It's instead largely about the idea that to write a useful, neutral article about something based on something more than the authors personal research, as a modest protection against biased articles as much as anything.  I can say (in this context) that the product is non-notable, but that I'm personally planning on looking to see if it is useful to me (which I am), without irony.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Searched for sources myself, I don't see the existence of multiple, independent, WP:NPOV [{WP:RS]]'s. As such, I believe the article fails not only WP:N but WP:V.  Note that there is no separate notability guideline that has reached consensus for software (there are at least two failed proposals), but even if there were, I don't believe there is any conssensus that a specific subject-area notability guideline actually overrules the general notability guideline of WP:N, so even if there were a subject-specific guideline, it is my opinon that the GNG would still apply.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  18:43, 10 July 2010 (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.