Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DriveImage XML
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.209.225.254 (talk) at 09:52, 27 December 2008 (→DriveImage XML). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 09:52, 27 December 2008 by 94.209.225.254 (talk) (→DriveImage XML)
- 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DriveImage XML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I think it should have stayed. No need to delete just because it's not much used. Software detailed not notable; just another commercial product for creating images of disks Cupids wings (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, besides the obvious notability problems (which for me was not a problem in itself IF this was a excellent product), this program offers nothing more than products that alredy exist, (like Acronis True Image, for example) it does not have a Live CD, and it is not cross-platform... SF007 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your opinion on the product's quality, as well as your narrow expectation of the product's features are of absolutely no concern to the deletion process. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just said that because if this product was clearly better than the alternatives I think it's inclusion on wikipedia should be considered (and I would vote "Keep"), regarding the notability policy, since policy are not rigid rules and are only to make a better wikipedia and to protect it from spam. (but nevermind, this is not the case...) SF007 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My point precisely... you base your decisions to keep or delete upon personal opinion of the product, which is completely inappropriate and absolutely no help to Wikipedia. While deletion requires discussion either way and there is little way you can sway the decision with your comments, it doesn't help the process if you come in and discuss things so highly off topic, please try to consider the article based upon policy in the future, thanks. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that the notability "policy" is not really a policy, it's "just" a guideline... but I know what you mean... SF007 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, i'm pretty sure you were commenting on the quality of the software and won't just retract it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that the notability "policy" is not really a policy, it's "just" a guideline... but I know what you mean... SF007 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My point precisely... you base your decisions to keep or delete upon personal opinion of the product, which is completely inappropriate and absolutely no help to Wikipedia. While deletion requires discussion either way and there is little way you can sway the decision with your comments, it doesn't help the process if you come in and discuss things so highly off topic, please try to consider the article based upon policy in the future, thanks. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just said that because if this product was clearly better than the alternatives I think it's inclusion on wikipedia should be considered (and I would vote "Keep"), regarding the notability policy, since policy are not rigid rules and are only to make a better wikipedia and to protect it from spam. (but nevermind, this is not the case...) SF007 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your opinion on the product's quality, as well as your narrow expectation of the product's features are of absolutely no concern to the deletion process. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Apart from what appears to be a procedural article in pcmag.com, no notable mention of the products use, or reviews that can verify it as a widely adopted application. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Software isn't notable unless its usage is widespread. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Sources are light, but exist [1]. Most are in-passing, but in at least most of those cases it is listed by news articles as a solid free alternative. Couldn't find a single good source, but 20 poor-ish ones are enough to show notability IMO Hobit (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable software. a quick WWW search for it shows relativly few hits, and those that do exist just seem to be adverts for it.
- Weak Delete as software comes and goes but there are a few non-trivial (if dated) blurbs here and there. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.