Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RaWrite


 * 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   redirect to Disk image. No prejudice against changing the section within Disk image that it redirects to, but I'm thinking the History section will work, as its currently very short. The page history is still accessible, so feel free to grab any content from the history and merge it, if necessary. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

RaWrite

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, apparently lacking any reliable sources to establish notability at all.  — Isarra (talk)  07:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also including the following for the same reason:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect: looking for the topic on Google Books I found quite a lot of coverage and I was preparing myself to arguing that these short passages of text indeed describe the utilities in detail. Still, the utilities themselves are so trivial, that I can't imaging possible article on them. I believe that both RaWrite and RaWrite2 should be redirected to Disk image (as it is done with, the similar application for Windows) and should be listed there. I see no need for admin action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment: Disk image article no longer has a "software" section. Fleet Command (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Disk image and Redirect - Recreate the software section or similar and merge the info there. RaWrite was a pretty common program, particularly for us old timers, and having the information here as part of another article is better than losing it.  I would agree that it won't pass WP:N for it's own article, but it is reasonable to assume that someone would want to search for the term.   Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Merging to Disk image would suggest that all the other software at Comparison of disc image software also get a mention there. Wouldn't that give undue weight to such titles within the context of Disk image? And (without changing the scope of Comparison of disc image software) it can't be included there unless it's notable. So, is it notable? Well, sources are difficult to come by... I've so far found a couple of mentions in The Linux operating system: An introduction, but not enough to establish notability in its own right. Was this sort of software discussed in printed magazines of that era? -- Trevj (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like everyone agrees that it isn't likely notable, so the real question is: what do we do with it? Even though it isn't notable, it is worth mentioning in another article due to its long history, hense the merge.  As to undue weight, I'm not sure that applies here as its inclusion isn't a contentious issue nor likely to sway anyone's decision as to what disk writing utility is "best" or should be used, and nothing is preventing other utilities from having paragraphs in the disk image article either.  It is reasonable to assume that people will run across the name, search the encyclopedia to see what it is, and then they would at least find a paragraph explaining its purpose.  We have lots of paragraphs about items that themselves are not notable enough to warrant a separate article, this would be no different.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:25, 30 April 2012 (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.