Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone Backup Extractor


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

IPhone Backup Extractor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article, lacks reliable sourced coverage of the subject. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Author Comment. Thanks for pinging my talk page! If I understand, there are two questions: notability and whether it’s promotional.
 * I don’t think the page falls foul of elements 1 - 4 in WP:PROMOTION. It appears neutral and factual. Element 5 states that it’s promotional if not notable — thus your citation of WP:NPRODUCT. Makes sense!
 * (WP:NPRODUCT says “if a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself”, and “a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.” On Draft:Reincubate, I see  suggests “it may be possible to recast this as an article on iPhone Backup Extractor”.)
 * With reference to WP:GNG, the page’s citations group into these:
 * ❌ Tech blogs & podcasts: hard to asses independence, reliability.
 * ❌ Release note chronology: clearly not secondary.
 * ❌ Review aggregators: not suitable for notability.
 * ✅ National press and government coverage around the royal award. Meets the WP:ORGCRIT tests for multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary. (Fits “substantial”, too.)
 * WP:PSTS provides examples of coverage that includes “a scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” and “an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product”. There are examples of both of these for the product in question at Draft:Reincubate. Would it be helpful if I edit the article's talk page proposing an edit to include them?
 * It’s been challenging digging out examples of similar products and companies on Wikipedia in order to see how it is done well. ScreenFlow is a much-edited and well-regard page, but has no notable sources at all. I’m not arguing WP:WHATABOUTX, but am curious to find good examples!
 * Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. can you enumerate which of the cited sources are in your 4th category? I'd like to review those.  Also I do think that the article has a WP:PROMOTIONAL slant to it but that should be able to be addressed through improvements to the article - deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS provides examples of coverage that includes “a scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” and “an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product”. There are examples of both of these for the product in question at Draft:Reincubate. Would it be helpful if I edit the article's talk page proposing an edit to include them?
 * It’s been challenging digging out examples of similar products and companies on Wikipedia in order to see how it is done well. ScreenFlow is a much-edited and well-regard page, but has no notable sources at all. I’m not arguing WP:WHATABOUTX, but am curious to find good examples!
 * Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. can you enumerate which of the cited sources are in your 4th category? I'd like to review those.  Also I do think that the article has a WP:PROMOTIONAL slant to it but that should be able to be addressed through improvements to the article - deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. can you enumerate which of the cited sources are in your 4th category? I'd like to review those.  Also I do think that the article has a WP:PROMOTIONAL slant to it but that should be able to be addressed through improvements to the article - deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is challenging to evaluate because at least half of the cited sources fail to meet WP:RS. If anyone is serious about keeping this article then delete all the WP:SPS then delete all sentences without a citation. I fail to recognize how this article meets WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Deletion is not cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Significant coverage in two cited sources:, ~Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Author Comment. Following up on ’s request for WP:ORGCRIT enumeration to support a keep... apologies for the delay, I’ve been reading forensics books.
 * Regarding notable award coverage, strong citations are the London Gazette entry here and the Southwark News article  (which you mentioned in your comment).
 * On the “book passage” criteria, there are a number of books with passages on iPhone Backup Extractor in forensics, penetration testing, and as a system utility. A typical example is “|Mobile Forensics Cookbook” (Mikhaylow, 2017). The following include passages on it, too, and some of these have specific citations in Draft:Reincubate:
 * Investigating the Cyber Breach (Muniz, Lakhani, 2018)
 * iOS Forensic Analysis: for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch (Morrissey, Campbell, 2010)
 * iOS Forensics Cookbook (Birani, Birani, 2016)
 * iPhone and iOS Forensics (Hoog, Strzempka, 2011)
 * Learning iOS Forensics (Epifani, Stirparo, 2015)
 * Learning iOS Penetration Testing (Yermalkar 2016)
 * Mastering Mobile Forensics (Tahiri, 2016)
 * Mobile Forensic Investigations (Reiber, 2015)
 * O’Reilly’s App Savvy (Yarmosh, 2010)
 * Operating System Forensics (Messier, 2016)
 * Practical Mobile Forensics (Mahalik, Tamma, Bommisetty, 2014)
 * Take Control of Your iPhone (Landau, 2009)
 * On the “scholarly article” criteria, there are several dozen papers with passages on the application and its use. Jonathan Zdziarski’s 2013 paper “iOS forensic investigative methods” has a chapter for it on page 110 (no deep-link I'm afraid). Similarly, 2012's “iPad 2 Logical Acquisition: Automated or Manual Examination?” (Ali, AlHosani, AlZarooni, Baggli) gives it a chapter (p. 119+) and makes reference to it throughout.
 * I believe these sources satisfy WP:RS and WP:ORGCRIT. I hope this is helpful. Tgho (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks, from this, I'll add, and  to my list of sources demonstrating notability. 5 total seems like plenty. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the “scholarly article” criteria, there are several dozen papers with passages on the application and its use. Jonathan Zdziarski’s 2013 paper “iOS forensic investigative methods” has a chapter for it on page 110 (no deep-link I'm afraid). Similarly, 2012's “iPad 2 Logical Acquisition: Automated or Manual Examination?” (Ali, AlHosani, AlZarooni, Baggli) gives it a chapter (p. 119+) and makes reference to it throughout.
 * I believe these sources satisfy WP:RS and WP:ORGCRIT. I hope this is helpful. Tgho (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks, from this, I'll add, and  to my list of sources demonstrating notability. 5 total seems like plenty. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. The dedication of paid editor tgho is admirable, as dedications go, but not sufficient to overcome the lack of verifiable independent notability. The sources put up in the effort to save the text are tangential to the subject, at best. E.g. the article in the Southwark News is about Aidan Fitzpatrick and not the product; if we want a bio on Aidan Fitzpatrick we already have a source. E.g. the article in the Sydney Morning Herald is a listing of apps that help the iPhone user, among which is this product. Same kind of listing (one among many) one encounters in specialist forensics texts such as the Forensics Cookbook. (Someone offered a London Gazette issue as proof of notability but their link contains no reference to the product; it lists the Queen's Awards and among those who won is Reincubate, with no mention of their product at all.) We are left with simply a gallant effort of a text. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and per comments above.  A "contrived case" at best. Britishfinance (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2019 (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.