Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novosoft Handy Backup


 * 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 of the debate was delete. — Mar. 9, '06 [18:08] 

Novosoft Handy Backup
I put a prod tag on the article with the following reason:Promotion/advert for a backup utility with no assertion of notability. Prod tag was removed by Novosoft (the author) with no comment, so I'n taking it here. Tonywalton | Talk 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I read your notice and made some changes in content, thought it was possible to remove the tag after that. Still trying to inderstand what is wrong with this article. Saw very similar article on another backup software, which isn't under deletion. Novosoft 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as creator of the article is clearly affiliated with the company.Wickethewok 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does affiliation always result in deletion? Novosoft 19:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not if the article stands on its own. See the guidelines on Notability. The question with any commercial product is why would someone go to an encylopedia to look it up, and what would they find that is different than just going to the company's web site. Something like Coca-Cola has been around so long it has cultural significance independent of its commercial value. Microsoft Windows has an interesting history, and the article says more than just where to buy it and how it works (including criticism not found on on official sites).  What is the significance of Handy Backup that someone would want to look it up in an authoritative, unbiased encyclopedia? Thatcher131 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just several points. Not many programs appeared on CNN headline news. Position in Google. Many reviews on backup software include HandyBackup. Amount of users. Isn't this enough?Novosoft 15:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can find fewer than 10 hits in Lexis/Nexis, dated 2002-2004. I don't know how many computer mags are indexed in Lexis/Nexis so that might be an undercount. It doesn't seem to have been mentioned by the New York Times or Wash Post, which would surely have been picked up in the search. PC magazine reviewed backup programs in 2003 and called it "mediocre."  In 2004 a tech columnist in the Bar Association's magazine praised it. It is mentioned in a Ziff-Davis produced segment on PCs that was offered to local TV stations in 2002. That's about the extent of the coverage. Notable?  I'll hold my own vote for the moment. Thatcher131 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you ask Google about backup, you will find that HandyBackup is on second or third place. It is there for years. Not sure that Google is right source of Notability though. Novosoft 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The company(Novosoft) article is under Category:Protected deleted pages. Eivind 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it related to content of this article? When I wrote those article, I was very new to Wikipedia and made some stupid mistakes. Going to try to recover that article after getting more experience. Novosoft 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Handybackup has 2500 downloads at downloads.com. Given that it is available from other sources as well, does it approach the 5000 user mark suggested in WP:SOFTWARE? But it's shareware (or trialware) so how many users are there really?  Has it been included in any published magazine reviews of backup software more recently than 2003? Thatcher131 07:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good linkWP:SOFTWARE. Amount of registered users of HandyBackup exceed 20,000. Download monthly rate is more than 5,000. AFAIK download.com shows amount of downloads for particular version(latest one), there were many previous versions of HandyBackup. Novosoft 08:18, 4 March 2006 (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.