Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JkDefrag


 * 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 Keep.  Maxim (talk)  13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

JkDefrag

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy deletion was overturned at DRV. However, it should still probably be deleted for lack of notability, unless reliable sources showing that it meets WP:WEB can be produced. Eluchil404 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a Web site- WP:WEB shouldn't apply here. It's a computer program, and it makes a claim to notability- that it is the first freeware disk defragmentation program for Windows. It also appears well-sourced. Keep. -Toptomcat 06:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Now and even past the point when a final decision is made by this debate, this article should be retained, my argument follows. Although not fluent with Wikipedia's contents guidelines, I am a fluent defragmentation enthusiest, and this non-commercial variant is significant in that its the first open-source free variation and through the only recent defragmentation comparitive articles via google and my own personal comparisons, this variation compares favourably.   This article should remain at least until a true 'Comparison of Defragmentation Software' page is setup listing all known defragmenation software for each platform (Windows/Linux etc) as well as comparative attributes specific to defragmentation. Schitzn 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would anyone object if I removed the AFD template from the article now that there are 2 notable references in the article and the relevance of the article is established? RitaSkeeter 13:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a "no" RitaSkeeter 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Only administrators can close AfD debates. -- intgr [talk] 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess this is going to take a LOOOOOONG time given the size of the egos involved?? Donn Edwards 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD debates are normally closed in 5 days (see WP:AFD). This AfD page is huge already, so please keep irrelevant comments under control. -- intgr [talk] 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see why a product as notable as JkDefrag should fail the notability test when the latest literature on the subject predates the public availability of the product. Surely more time is needed before nuking the article? RitaSkeeter 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Notable Are the articles by journalist Serdar Yegulalp of Computerworld (also published in Network World Asia) and another one WinComputing suitably notable? Please advise. RitaSkeeter 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They look pretty good. Add 'em. -Toptomcat 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reliable sources are provided. The so called references so far provided links to: a) generic defrag articles, with no mention of this software. b) This softwares web site. c) Comaparable software to this. Nuttah68 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for the number of references to the official website is because statements need citations, and the web site provides an authoritative source to verify the facts being stated. RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - the only source that meets WP:RS is dubious, as it is only used to cite the "commercial defragmenters". Lack of reliable sources is usually indicicative of a subject that is just not notable.  /Blaxthos 13:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Blaxthos. There is absolutely no excuse for poor sourcing when it comes to software articles, as that's a subject with such an abundance of magazines, books, etc.  Notable software would have plenty of reliable sources, this doesn't. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So far I have added several references, but the biggest problem with the lack of noteworthy sources is that it takes the Computer Industry magazines about 2 years to do another defrag roundup, and no noteworthy defrag reviews have been done this year, unless you count the "Great Defrag Shootout" review, which is more comprehensive than anything PC Magazine has ever done, and their last review in PC Magazine was in 2005.
 * No books have been published on Defragmentation in 2007, according to Amazon
 * None of the books published about Windows Vista have mentioned anything other than Vista's own defrag program.
 * Since JkDefrag has only become well known this year, it's a bit soon to bemoan the lack of published sources, given the delay time in book publishing in general.RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment not entirely sure of deletion-worthiness yet, but it shouldn't have to fit the criteria under WP:WEB IMHO because it's not actually a website. Or a webpage. Other than the primary form of distrubtion (which is over the web), this software doesn't have much to do with the web. M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the rush to deletion? PLEASE can we have a stay of execution until at least the end of September? I can see no reason for the article to be deleted other than pedantic ones, especially when there are articles like Windows Powertools that are even LESS relevant.


 * I still don't understand why the fact that it is the first GPL-freeware defrag program that is good enough to be compared with the commercial defrag program DOESN'T make it noteworthy? From the software industry point of view this is highly noteworthy, IMHO. RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Unless you believe widespread, independent, reliable coverage is going to happen over the next two weeks what does a stay of execution achieve? The article needs these sources to establish notability, if you are unlucky enough that at the moment no one wants to provide coverage that is bad luck but does not change Wikipedia's requirements. Nuttah68 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The proper response to a sourcing problem is to tag the article as unsourced, not to just nuke it. Just because a casual inspection doesn't find anything that looks suitable doesn't mean that someone dedicated to the article- or just someone who's dedicated to sourcing articles- can't dig something up with some more effort. If the article had been tagged as improperly sourced for a while without anyone doing anything about it, I'd endorse deletion wholeheartedly, but deleting now is premature whichever way you slice it. -Toptomcat 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. I have asked for more time in order to find the relevant sources. I see that a request has been made on the JkDefrag support forum for further information. Nuking the article (which has already been done once) was greeted with outrage by some users. RitaSkeeter 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD process is a complete waste of time. I have personally reviewed 15 commercial and 16 freeware defrag programs this year, and JkDefrag is one of the best programs available. For some reason the Wiki admins seem to think that only the Diskeeper article should not be deleted. This reflects more on the ignorance of those wanting to delete the articles than on the noteworthiness of the products concerned. My reviews have been mentioned in two newsletters and on the "Security Now" podcast, but this isn't "noteworthy' because those sources do not appear in print. I guess we'll have to wait for the New York Times to do a review before the matter is settled. DonnEdwards 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please- let's not get vitriolic. You have valid points that I agree with, so please don't sabotage them with your tone. -Toptomcat 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I guess my frustration is showing because I happen to know something about the topic but the people who want to delete the article for the wrong reasons don't seem to want to listen to reason. I have put in a lot of work on the defragmentation and related articles in the past, only for the work to be deleted. The JkDefrag page looks like another example of heavy-handed deletion by non-experts. Who is the windows software/programming expert on WikiPedia, and why hasn't s/he been asked to mediate? I appeal to Ceasar! Donn Edwards 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See, that's the thing. The whole Wikipedia process is designed specifically to eliminate the neccesity for Ceasars/experts to appeal to. If you can find a source that meets their criteria, whoever you are, the article gets left alone. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what kind of authority you are; you'll be ignored, and rightly so. This just isn't that kind of project.
 * So get to it! Double-check various sections of our rules with the review, newsletter, and podcast, and trawl like mad for other sources that may better fit our guidelines. It's this article's best chance. -Toptomcat 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that anyone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic can mark any article for deletion because they are picky about references, and they can waste other people's time by forcing them to find references even though the article is a stub. Rather than "contributing" by marking the article for deletion, why not contribute by doing a bit of research??? Now the JkDefrag article looks like superscript soup because of all the references. I hope everyone is feeling sufficiently SMUG. Donn Edwards 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like a "superscript soup" because that is not how you're supposed to write a referenced article. Most of the references on it are simply useless. -- intgr [talk] 08:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive criticism. We all feel much better now 41.243.174.82 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would clean them up if there was a chance for the article to survive this AFD. -- intgr [talk] 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ....What? *weeps for Wikipedia* -Toptomcat 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing, and I'm glad everyone is being so grown up and gracious. FYA Donn Edwards 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Things I have learnt from the AfD Process (with apologies to How to Win Friends and Influence People)
 * Anyone can criticise, and/or delete, and it's easy to do
 * It takes a lot of effort to get the deleted item back, and to argue against the lame reasons for deletion
 * The original contributors feel insulted and/or frustrated
 * The critics feel smug because they pointed out the mistakes, even though they don't/won't have the time, energy or inclination to stoop so low as to actually fix things.
 * The article does not improve, if it survives at all. Those whose efforts are trashed think twice about contributing again
 * It takes absolute ages to get the AfD issue to go away, because no-one wants to admit they were wrong.


 * The article was nominated for AfD because its subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline &mdash; the criterion being "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The purpose of the AfD is not to criticize anyone's work, nor to tell anyone to work more on the article. And the solution to the AfD is to demonstrate that the nomination does not hold. That is, demonstrate its conformance with the notability criterion.
 * The notability criterion is based on the existence of such sources. All that's necessary to resolve this AfD to indicate the presence of reliable sources, on this AfD discussion page, or in an "external links" section, or anywhere really. No, we did not ask you to turn the article into a "superscript soup." In fact, the addition of insignificant references (which only mention the program in one paragraph) only convinces people further that no significant sources can be found.
 * I would like to point out that you didn't even attempt to argue the subject's notability in terms of the notability criterion before resorting to irrelevant arguments about how lazy and smug Wikipedia editors are deleting your work because they don't like it. Is this the kind of constructive tone that we're supposed to learn from? -- intgr [talk] 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - the notability issue is resolved: there are 3 references that meet the notability guidelines. What other issues are still outstanding? WP:WEB not apply, since the article is not about a web site. Is this going to take long? Donn Edwards 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which are these three references? As far as I can tell, the only such article is the TechTarget one. I am not sure your "Great Defrag Shootout" conforms because it does not meet WP:RS: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." I don't have access to the Computer Power User magazine; does it cover the program significantly? The title does not seem to suggest so. -- intgr [talk] 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in "Defragmentation freeware outpaces native tools in Windows" in WinComputing April 2007
 * "JkDefrag 3.7 (named for its creator, J.C. Kessels of Holland) uses Windows' own native MoveFile APIs (the same subroutines used by DEFRAG itself) to do its work, so using the program entails little risk of data corruption."
 * "The application is standalone; it can be run in any directory and requires no installation, so it can even be run from a removable drive as part of a portable software toolkit. Any mountable read-write file system in Windows can be defragmented with it."
 * "Some of the program's more sophisticated features are the sorts of things you usually only see in defragmentation software you pay for. It allows you to move seldom-used files to the end of the disk, or force all files to move to the front of the disk (i.e., as a prelude to resizing a partition). The utility also moves all directory structures to the front of the disk, creates a free-space buffer at the front 1% of the disk, and frees up space in the MFT reserved zone whenever possible."
 * "However, it does not perform any more advanced file placement than that, possibly because Windows itself (XP and Vista) has internal management for those functions. (It's been suggested to the freeware's author that JkDefrag be instructed to not move files that have been tagged by the prefetch optimizer, and he plans to eventually include this feature whenever possible.)"
 * "The program is both free and open-source; it's been made available under the GNU General Public License in both 32- and 64-bit implementations. Along with the Visual C++ source code, the author has also provided a DLL library that allows the program to be implemented from other applications. Note: To make the program's options a little easier to deal with, cohort Emiel Wieldraaijer has written a GUI command interface for JkDefrag called JkDefragGUI."


 * and in "Must-have Windows utilities for 20 essential tasks" in ComputerWorld and Network World Asia July 2007:
 * "Disk defragmentation"
 * "Windows' native Defrag application, based on the long-running Diskeeper defragmentation program, has never been very good, although it's been incrementally improved over time. After Microsoft started including a native file-defragmentation API in Windows (starting with Windows 2000), many individual programmers stepped up to create defrag tools of their own."
 * "A number of freeware defrag programs offer similar functionality. Of those, the best I've found so far is the open-source JkDefrag from Jeroen Kessels. It can be run in a graphical mode, from the command line or even as a screen saver. While I'm not a fan of file-placement options -- it's not always clear what kind of performance benefit they provide -- JkDefrag has a slew of them, including the ability to move the least used and least accessed files to the end of the disk. One flaw: JkDefrag doesn't preserve any files specified in the Windows prefetch layout folder, so prefetching will break if you use JkDefrag consistently. (This isn't fatal; it just might have an unanticipated performance impact.)"
 * Mentioned in "Boxed Utility Blowout" in Computer Power User magazine September 2007 pg 66-68


 * Mentioned in Freeware/Open Source for Windows Weekly Summary by Todd Ogasawara on O'Reilly Windows Devcentre July 2007


 * Nominated "Repair Tool of the Week" in TechNibble August 2007 Donn Edwards 16:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mentioned in PC Tune-up Newsletter by Mark Edwards, September 13, 2007, Issue 122
 * "Free stand-alone disk defragmentation tool"


 * "Defragmenting your hard drives is important, because doing so increases system speed and reduces drive wear by eliminating unnecessary disk read operations."
 * "File are stored on your disk in sectors. The more compact your files are, the faster your disk subsystem can find the information and read it. So, naturally, the optimal storage pattern for any file is to have all of its sectors right next to each other."
 * "That's where disk defragmentation tools come into play. Defrag tools rearrange your files so that they're stored contiguously. Windows comes with a built-in disk deframentation tool, but it's not the fastest one available, nor is it very flexible. In fact, you must run the tool as Administrator, which presents a problem for many users."
 * "John Mason wrote to us about this problem and asked if we know of any disk defragmentation tools that are self-contained, can run from a flash drive, and don't require Administrator-level access in order to run."
 * "John, I do know of such a tool. JkDefrag is a free, lightweight tool that that comes in three varieties. The first variety runs as a typical Windows desktop application, the second is a command-line version, and the third is a screensaver that defrags the drive when your screensaver kicks in."
 * "Another cool feature of JkDefrag is that it defrags floppies and USB-based media, such as flash drives. If you're interested, you can also download the complete source code for use in Microsoft Visual C++." RitaSkeeter 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Having been through all this issue of notability on other articles I have been involved with I have seen it all before. An excellent article on a program which perhaps only now is becoming well known it should not be deleted at this stage. I myself have only just started using it, and it has only just been mentioned on Security Now. So reliable third party reviews are in short supply at the moment. Surely it is WP's policies that need to be changed, not articles such as these, otherwise we are stifling the very knowledge base which WP is aiming to generate. Dsergeant 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources listed above, wait for prior voters to reconsider the sources. -- intgr [talk] 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How long does this take? A few hours? days? months? Please advise. Thank you. RitaSkeeter 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The typical timeframe is days. -Toptomcat 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the Vopt AfD page: Another fundamental issue is that Wikipedia:Deletion Policy -- Wikipedia official policy that requires "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" -- seems not to have been followed here. The policy, which seems to have been completely ignored here, requires nominators to consider alternatives to deletion -- such as editing, tagging or merging the article -- before considering deletion as a last resort. Given that the article as it existed when nominated for deletion made explicit claims of notability and provided ample sources, there seems to be little justification for this clear policy violation. At a minimum, an explanation of the nominator's actions would be in order --RitaSkeeter 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The original nomination message was pushed downwards by some user's vote which is probably why you missed it; I have cleaned it up now (see the top of the page). -- intgr [talk] 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, that's not really how things work around here. We assume good faith. I'm not sure why you are complaining anyway; the process is working in your favor. Just relax and let things play out. -- Satori Son 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm inclined to agree with Rita and others that the article now has sufficient notability from credible sources. Having experimented with the product I also personally feel it's notable enough to be included, not that that matters much. And not that I wish to start a great flame war, but if obscure episodes from Dr. Who in the 1960's are notable enough to have articles, then this particular software certainly qualifies. Holmwood 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per sufficient reliable sources that have been provided. The article is reasonably well written, nor is it an advert, nor is there any conflict of interest. -- Ekjon Lok 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Huzzah. Sanity prevails. -Toptomcat 03:55, 21 September 2007 (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.