Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BackupChain

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 Speedy G7. nancy 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BackupChain

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

I found nothing that shows that this software is notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If the software every becomes widely used then maybe it would warrant an article similar to BackupPC, but right now it seems pretty non-notable. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other free products may have a lot of references online because they are free. But that itself doesn't make the product notable. Just because some editors are familiar with a product, doesn't necessary mean the general public is, too. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
Delete: no indications of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment based on what research?. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
  - On my research. And on your research that we have at BackupChain. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's plenty of indication out there, what you are talking about?. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:43, February 10, 2012 (UTC) (UTC).
KEEP this software is in widespread use in the virtualization business with over 30,000 users to date. You may contact FastNeuron Inc. if you are in doubt of the notability of this software. — Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:06, February 10, 2012‎ (UTC) (UTC).
- And so what? How do the over 30,000 users help establishing notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Well, his point was that if a lot of people use it regularly, it should be notable. Which is a reasonable concept. However, contacting FasNeuron for their number of users should be considered as a primary source, or perhaps original research. There should be reliable, secondary sources saying that there are 30,000 users. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see nothing valid in this concept. To be included in Wikipedia, any piece of software, regardless of its user base, has to meet to at least the requirements of WP:GNG, which is explicitly stated to be a bare minimal requirement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First of all, if some Wiki users are unaware of the product, they can't nominate the page for deletion just like that. If there's doubt you need to contact people in the industry to verify the notability of the product. The unavailability of this information at this point has several reasons: 1. people have better things to do than to write about products, unless they get paid for it but then it's not an objective source, is it? 2. it's a niche so not everyone online will OPENLY talk about it 3. you will find plenty of references to the product online. We don't pay magazine editors like other companies do to promote the product. If you wanted to be strict about the notability requirement you would have to remove almost all businesses and products from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papadopoulossav (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where did you get the idea? The due process of deletion is described in deletion policy. Though I have to agree that many businesses and products should be removed from Wikipedia, and you may check the list of Software-related deletion discussions and the list of Business-related deletion discussions for progress. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a two year old example from 2010, the product was included in DCIG's buyer's guide which is a leading publication in this business http://dcigbuyersguides.com/2011-virtual-server-backup-software-buyers-guide/ The thing is that the publication is not open to the public you need to pay for it. This publication is read by pretty much everyone in the business Papadopoulossav (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To keep it shorter: see WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough on why DCIG Buyer's Guide doesn't help much. And still there should be significant in-depth reviews to have this kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To keep it short for you: I am not going to spend the entire evening explaining to you the significance of the word notable. Notable means 'worthy of notice' and the section WP:B2B#Trade publications and awards aren't good enough you referenced is an opinion that lacks scientific and academic background. The statement "being of interest to the general public is what counts for notability, though" is non-sense. The general public doesn't give a damn about most of what you read in Wikipedia. It's all niche to some point. Further down it says "General Motors Co. don't have to explain to the outside world what they make". Hello? Ask people in Africa and Europe if they know GE, I bet you won't find many. So what makes something notable to you doesn't necessarily apply to others. If you knew anything about our industry you wouldn't be questioning the notability of BackupChain.

In-depth reviews are usually written by bloggers who have been hired to publish whatever the company wants to have presented to the public. These "in-depth" reviews neither add to notability nor do they demonstrate public interest in the product. You can spend $1M and get a whole bunch of magazines write about you. Does it mean anyone cares? I suspect you have been hired by a competitor to instigate such claims against the product. Papadopoulossav (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using General Motors as an example is a bad decision because there is plenty of sources out there irregardless of whether people in Africa and Europe know of it. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Europe and I know both General Motors and GE, and even know the difference between them. What am I doing wrong? And most of people I know also know these brands, and also don't know yours. How do you think, is it because I'm hired by your opponents to clear their minds every evening, or simply because your product isn't notable? Actually you replied yourself: "If [...] you wouldn't be questioning the notability of BackupChain." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 10 February 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.