Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automatic Backup Copy

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. Jenks24 (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Backup Copy[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable software: refs are general ones not on topic and download links. Article recreation of one previously deleted multiple times and created by software's publisher. Previously PRODed; prod notice removed without addressing concerns. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for the opportunity to express my concerns. I'm new to WIKI and I have made some mistakes in the past and now haunted for that (previous speed deletion). I'm having a really hard time to understand how fast my page gets nominated in comparison to pages listed in List of backup software with much more self-promotional material and certainly without any nomination like the one I received. Cobian Backup got a very soft message not like mine, and many others in that section have a more promotional material than me or Cobian for that matter. I do understand about the encyclopedic value of each page, but I would like to communicate another alternative also. I would really appreciate if my page is kept as long as the others are in List of backup software, Thanks for your understanding. I do understand if you need to follow the rules and delete mine! I just would like to be in the same group as the others backup wiki pages are! Thanks in advance. I do understand lately WIKI became a must-stop place to learn something, and maintain quality will strengthen that concept. But when it comes to software description wikis, it is hard not to be self-promotional when you describe what it can do! Especially when the whole list of wikis in List of backup software do not display the encyclopedic content rules. Probably, a disclaimer at the top saying something not encyclopedic material would be a way, or not validated data where others could click in a like or true value or something like that.MarcoDFW (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable software. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feed back MrOllie. Could you please address my questions/concerns expressed above?MarcoDFW (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a key requirement for Wikipedia articles and is described here: Wikipedia:Notability. In particular the General notability guideline. You should also look at Wikipedia:Verifiability which covers how an article satisfies the notability requirement, through reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:37, 12 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks to MrOllie, JohnBlackburne and Mark Arsten and many others that help me to understand concepts like General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability very helpful and 100% clear at my end. Now, unfortunately I haven't received an answer to the rest of my concerns stated in my initial statement. And to re-iterate again, if all is so clear with links and all explaining the why question to me, why the other wiki pages in List of backup software are no so quickly nominated or measured with the same rules, guidelines and standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoDFW (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline there is "What about X?". It doesn't matter what other articles exist, this article needs to be on a notable subject in its own right. In particular if other articles were taken into account as you suggest then nothing would be deleted, as there are always other similar articles given how easily they are created. There's even an essay on this, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which goes into much more detail.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks JohnBlackburne, but if you go to List of backup software and concentrate in the free section, at least half of the articles do not meet Wikipedia:Notability not talking of "What about X?" or Wikipedia:Other stuff exists... MarcoDFW (talk) 19:19, 15 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this passes WP:N. Many references are WP:BOMBARDment basically. This software is not even included in the very generous round-up [1] on TopTenReviews, which is however included as "reference" in this article. Download pages do not count as independent coverage and the few other obscure websites cited are not WP:RS. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. Most of the citations listed on the page are not considered reliable (like download sites for freeware). The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 02:19, 24 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.