Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offline Storage Table

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 Personal Storage Table. Numerous options were suggested for redirect targets; the only one that currently mentions this subject is Personal Stoarge Table, so that's where I'll redirect this to. I'm not going to delete the history, so if there is any actual sourced content someone thinks should be merged, feel free to do so by looking at the history. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offline Storage Table

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not totally sure if this is notable, but could redirect or merge to Personal Storage Table. --10:03, 12 September 2012
Delete per above --Mediran ^talk 10:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Speedy delete per G11 - Unambiguous advertising. This is just puff advertising for this website as linked in the article. Any useful encyclopaedic content can go in Microsoft Exchange Server. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even close to unambiguous advertising. Most of the article has nothing to do with that website and is a factual description of a small (probably non-notable) feature of MS Windows. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article has changed since I !voted, including removing the advertising link and then removing the AfD notice against process. But now things like "Though you can set the many configurations for Take on life manually" make no sense. What's Take on life? I don't know. And if it's notable, where are the multiple, independent, reliable sources? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 - Unambiguous advertising. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did basic cleanup Keep - I agree it was a terrible WP article as first published, but I took 10m or so and gave it a basic format, and now it's at least a poorly referenced article that needs cleanup, but a basic WP article. I don't see how this is any less valid that Portable Document Format (.pdf), which was an Adobe-proprietary file format from 1993-2008. .ost is proprietary MS, sure, but it's a file format known throughout much of the world. I'm not sure of the best way to reference it (not a computer guy), but it certainly seems Notable. I also don't see how this was "unambiguous advertising" even in the beginning, though it certainly ran afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO. Do folks think it's worth developing now that I've cleaned it up? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Personal Storage Table (.pst) is a pretty substantial article, so not sure why this couldn't be. I'm not convinced that they're close enough to "the same thing" to do a full merge, but I'll leave that to the computer wiz guys. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting as the article has been cleaned up and the speedy delete !votes no longer apply. I would also like to hear more about whether sources exist about this file format that might show it passes WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find any reliable source information on "Offline Storage Table". Loooking at OST + Microsoft + Prospect (e.g., Microsoft company Prospect, I didn't find anythng. I looked for "OST data file", and found "Provide to OST data files and images of remittance received each day in a structure and format compatible with OST systems and BIA specifications."FedBizOpps May 15, 2009. From that, I looked at OST systems, which brought many hits for Open System Technologies as well as hits for out-of-school time (OST), Open Systems Thinking (OST), Operator System Transmission (OST), etc. I think it would be of value for Wikipedia to have an article on the Offline Storage Table topic, but without meeting even a lower end of the WP:GNG requirement of reliable source material, I don't see a Wikipedia basis for keeping the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think part of problem is the name of the article. I searched out "ost and pst and offline", and found: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Most of them are press releases, but they do note the OST topic. The solution here seems to be to delete Offline Storage Table and then redirect Offline Storage Table to Computer data storage#Off-line storage. "Computer data storage#Off-line storage" can include a link to a new article, called Offline mail storage, which can discuss ost Offline Storage Table and pst Personal Storage Table. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you specifically discounting all the hits that come up on GoogleBooks? Some are instructional books, others about general concepts in computing, and I'n not tech-savvy enough to know which are substantive and which in-passing. I'm just confused since you mention such a low bar as "they note the OST topic" while ".ost file" gets hundreds of hits on GoogleBooks. Again, note other file extensions like .pdf (Portable Document Format) have full and well-developed and sourced articles. I'd really like to hear from a tech-specialising editor whether this has similar potential. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to sources that you would like reviewed? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I appreciate MatthewVanitas' efforts with the article, I don't think other stuff exists is a sufficient reason to keep. Notability for a stand-alone article simply hasn't been established in this case. Miniapolis (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microsoft Exchange. It's not worth a full article, but a brief mention in the Exchange article with a link to some reference on the details of the file format would be appropriate. --John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.