Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backup4all

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backup4all

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable software. I was going to prod the article, but it was already deleted that way previously and by speedy deletion after that. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the PROD and speedy where in 2006 and 2007 respectively, so cannot really be relevant in 2021. Looking at this, while I have never heard about it myself, there are some reviews from various sources over a period spanning from around 2014, such as Softpedia, PC World and Techradar as a recommended or suggested solution. I can't say if this qualifies the notability guidelines or not, though they're independent, third-party reviews over a period of time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The softpedia article includes download links and a license key deal for Backup4all Lite, so I would not consider it independent. The techradar link is a brief, incidental mention at the end of the article, not a thorough review.Dialectric (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting this satisfies any notability criteria, hence a comment and not a !vote. I happen to think on balance the article may not have sufficient in-depth secondary sources, but it doesn't harm to discuss what is found, relevant or not. What I posted is by no means exhaustive. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found references from Tech Radar, ghacks, and many other tech magazines about this software through Google search. It seems like a good backup software. Mommmyy (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mommmyy: The techradar link is the exact same one I posted above and the other link has nothing to do with backup4all. Are you sure you meant that one? I remain on the fence regarding notability though. A number of reasonable length, independent reviews would be useful. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle:, I mistaken Ghack as a tech magazine and found it is a blog. Sorry for that. But what about PCWorld? It seems to be a good reference. I can see that you've recommended this one too. I don't know if Capterra is trustworthy or not. I would like to leave it up to your' consideration. Mommmyy (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add one more thing. I found another source from Tech Radar. Please check. Mommmyy (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of all the sources posted, only the PC World one seems to be a completely independent reliable source with significant coverage, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Further attempts at finding quality sources came up empty. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are two independent sources that talk about this software in some detail. It just squeaks by the notability requirements. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Backup software is very very common software and it would need to quite special to get an article. I don't see why it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:58, 18 December 2021 (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.