Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranish Partition Manager
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep and improve article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranish Partition Manager[edit]
- Ranish Partition Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN free software partitioner. No refs to be found Ipatrol (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are refs to be found if you looked. A link you posted has 14 references [1]. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I may find more "sources" for it but I don't think my time is best utilized this way. Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lumenos, if you are not interested in writing encyclopedia entries, then do not write for Wikipedia. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I labeled the article as a stub. As far as I understand the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, the question of deletion applies to the name of the article only. I've now posted a list of sources demonstrating that the software meets WP:GNG. If you have complaints about the content, I think they would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question of notability pertains to the subject of the article.
- If it meets the general notability guideline, then re-write the article. How about this:
- I labeled the article as a stub. As far as I understand the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, the question of deletion applies to the name of the article only. I've now posted a list of sources demonstrating that the software meets WP:GNG. If you have complaints about the content, I think they would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lumenos, if you are not interested in writing encyclopedia entries, then do not write for Wikipedia. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranish Partition Manager is a free software program for managing partitions on a hard drive. It is generally recommended by some computer professionals as a good alternative to commercial partition managers such as ..., as well as other free partition managers including ..., because of its easier-to-use, menu-driven command line interface, ability to simulate all changes to the disk to verify the likely success of the changes, and correct handling of many partition formats.%INSERT <ref> TAGS HERE% Ranish Partition Manager has been recommended for mostly advanced users. Unlike some other partition managers, it allows the user to edit the extended boot records, clone entire partitions, and view the cylinder-head-sector geometry of up to 32 partitions on a drive.%INSERT MORE <ref> TAGS HERE%
Ranish Partition Manager is included with SystemRescueCD.
- If you want, you can userify the article by editing it at User:Lumenos/Ranish Partition Manager until it is ready to be moved to article space. You can e-mail me when you are ready to do this. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting D. Trebbien from above, "The question of notability pertains to the subject of the article." We have already established that the subject is notable. Your comments pertain to the content, not the subject. You are trying to use the threat of deletion to compel me to conform the article to your interpretation of the editing policy. A more legitimate way to do this would be to use the {{verify}} tag. Quoting the deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Lumenos (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem with the article in its current state is that it is mostly original research; you have written your personal opinion of the software's features and merits. Original research is not good for an encyclopedia article and it needs to be removed. However, removing all of the original research from the article would basically trim it to an empty article that does not assert the significance of the subject. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a link to 14 books that mention Ranish PM. You are exaggerating to say the article would be nothing if it were trimmed down to only "sourced" information. You could justify deleting some of the article based on the policies you mentioned, but it would not justify deleting the entire article. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find any policy explaining who carries the burden of proving that the subject of the article is notable or not. You seem to think that is my job, but one policy states that if there is no "rough consensus", the article should not be deleted. Anyway, I put a lot more references in the article since the last post of anyone else. It will be a damn shame if some ignorant admin, decides to kill it. You may consider it merely my opinion, because you don't know anything about partition tables, but Ranish Partition Manager (run from SystemRescueCD) is one of the fastest ways of creating bit-identical clones (backups) for system partitions, and perhaps the most intuitive and efficient partition editor for partition tables that are compatible with Windows XP... and it is freeware. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem with the article in its current state is that it is mostly original research; you have written your personal opinion of the software's features and merits. Original research is not good for an encyclopedia article and it needs to be removed. However, removing all of the original research from the article would basically trim it to an empty article that does not assert the significance of the subject. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting D. Trebbien from above, "The question of notability pertains to the subject of the article." We have already established that the subject is notable. Your comments pertain to the content, not the subject. You are trying to use the threat of deletion to compel me to conform the article to your interpretation of the editing policy. A more legitimate way to do this would be to use the {{verify}} tag. Quoting the deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Lumenos (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want, you can userify the article by editing it at User:Lumenos/Ranish Partition Manager until it is ready to be moved to article space. You can e-mail me when you are ready to do this. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not assert notability. WP:GNG - user:Addionne
- The deletion policy does not state that articles should be deleted because they don't "assert notability", it says they should be deleted if they do not meet the notability requirements. That means you would actually have to do more than glance at the article and see if it has any references. Here are 14 references that are probably published by third-parties. [2] Lumenos (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I had to search a bit to find some third-party reviews, but I think that from what I have seen so far, the subject is notable enough for there to be an article about it: [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To explain my reasoning further, I am generally of the mindset that if a subject has some independent, substantive writings about it, then there can be an article about it. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is space for obscure topics. However—the article must be well-written and factually-correct, follow the manual of style, and it must read like an encyclopedia article. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that content is more valuable than style, but the question here is notability. Lumenos (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the question is notability. No one's perceived value of content should be an argument in a deletion discussion because all editors have a different world view which makes content on particular topics more valuable to them than to others. Taking things to extreme, Wikipedia is not censored, and if a topic is demonstrably notable then it can be included (with a few exceptions that are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion). « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is demonstrably "notable", according to the real definition of the word, but you have to know or learn things about partition tables and partition editors to be able to see that. As far as Wikipedia's policy that attempts to use third-party publishers to judge notability for us, we have 14 books [8]. I have been a very bad editor and spent more time explaining the reasons Ranish Partition Manager is a valuable partitioner, based on my own experience with it, but at least I cited 10 sources in the process (which is many more refs than a great number of software articles that these wiki editors have no interest in criticizing, for whatever reason). Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the question is notability. No one's perceived value of content should be an argument in a deletion discussion because all editors have a different world view which makes content on particular topics more valuable to them than to others. Taking things to extreme, Wikipedia is not censored, and if a topic is demonstrably notable then it can be included (with a few exceptions that are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion). « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that content is more valuable than style, but the question here is notability. Lumenos (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To explain my reasoning further, I am generally of the mindset that if a subject has some independent, substantive writings about it, then there can be an article about it. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is space for obscure topics. However—the article must be well-written and factually-correct, follow the manual of style, and it must read like an encyclopedia article. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are many references by third party publications.[9] It is also notable that the software is free and yet has many features not found in similar software. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Dtrebbien above. Seems to have ample notability. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2010 (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.