Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offline Storage Table
- Offline Storage Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (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)
- 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)
(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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Speedy delete per G11 - Unambiguous advertising. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)