Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eboostr

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. I'm reluctant to salt here, but if you disagree, feel free to file a request for protection at WP:RFPP. Daniel (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eboostr

Eboostr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I tagged this article for speedy deletion two weeks ago. Unbeknownst to me, the article was recreated later the same day, and was immediately tagged {{notability}} and {{primary sources}}. The creator removed these tags almost immediately, but there was no follow-up from the tagger. Earlier today, the creator left a note on my talk page, written in bad French, telling me that I had no business requesting the deletion of an article on a subject I know nothing about. I may not know much about cache software, but I sure know that this article is written like an ad, not to mention that the notability concerns have not been addressed. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Where are the outside sources for any of those assertions about the product? Duncan1800 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with salt if necessary to prevent continued re-creation. Travellingcari (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am yet unfamiliar with all wiki precedure I may have made mistakes. The unfortunate first impression of perceived advertising intention may require the deletion of my article.

After the article was rewriten on a more neutral note, and after adding the context aserting the notability of this software I decided to remove the notability tag.

I must say Blanchardb claim of I using BAD french were unfortunate as I did my best to address him in his native language.

I must also agree that Improvement over microsoft readyboost was inacurate. As I am not an expert of the exact inneer functioning of neither these software. The only improved feature I am sure of is the use of multiple caching devices, A huge lack in msft readyboost that could be asserted by anyone running windows vista and not solely a Msft representative as sugested.

I have no financial interest at all even less in eBoostr, all I can say as a Semiconductor representative is that this is a key software (XP type) as the nand memory market had planned supply for higher adoption of Windows Vista and it`s readyboost funtionality requiring nand. Also that in the fist place this caching technology was even more required for older / lower end PCs that would be better of with XP`s lower memory requirement.

ADD vs AD$ ... I must also notice my immense frustration in Blanchardb admission of "may not know much about cache software, but I sure know that this article is written like an ad". That make me ask "how much else can he know about AD$ on this subject ?"

It may look like an ad to you because the wiki newly created page is important to you but to my knowledge it`s not a notable yet mainstream channel with notable advertising.

Now if I get a litle crazy : Wikipedia fundraising was blantant advertising of fiat currency symbols, and yes I added this article so it`s an AD(D) writen as such. --Transisto (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The reviews listed as references establish notability, I think. --Eastmain (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The only problem is, that the only references throughout the article is a non-linked document. The non-linked document is non-verifiable and the information listed cannot be determined as accurate. Third party reviews (by a computing or technology magazine, essay, or web-article, not a blog, manufacturer's website, or personal website) are needed to determine notability. The reviews should be added to the sentences they deal with. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The POV section that I objected to has been edited out. If this software's notability can be shown (that is, if it can be shown to be a moderately serious competitor to its stated Microsoft "equivalent", not in terms of features but rather in terms of notoriety), then I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Even something that hints to a 1% market share would be enough, considering the size of the competitor. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Another effectively unreferenced article about a tech product. The references given are apparently to some group's internal notes, failing verifiability, and to Windows Vista documentation that isn't about this software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and reformat. This software claim is not referenced and can only be by someone with Windows Xp plus an Internet connection who have 5 min to install the demo. I doubt such a person would ever be found.......

Ps: Stop criticizing reference as this is mostly a notability meter decision. You could delete the part you can't find reference on. but is this a Nand caching for Xp or not ? ... find a notable verifiable xp user reference for yourself !!! google has bout 403,000 result for eboostr . Personally I have no doubt on my memories of having tested this software...

And please for my personal interest could someone point me to some drawback other than disk space and indexing time of having article of lesser notability ?

Ebooster does have many results in Google, however, most are unusable as sources. I did a quick search earlier and could not find any that could help improve the article. Also, the references help determine the notability of the article. If the references are useless or of little help, then the notability of the article does not improve. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The sources in the article are either primary sources or passing mentions, and don't establish notability. A quick gsearch shows lots of very short reviews of the software exist -- I am not familiar enough with the sites involved to determine if they are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (And a note to Blanchardb - I am the tagger, and I had this article on a list to follow up on in a couple of weeks, which I am doing now.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2008 (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.