Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ImDisk

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. — Cirt (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ImDisk

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

Fails to comply with Wikipedia:Notability guideline as it does not provide any evidence of having received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Fleet Command (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that the article merely lacks more References, but has had plenty of coverage. I see no competing software, or some other software for MS Windows which offers the same feature as this one, let alone one with much more coverage than this one.
The talk page discusses this a bit more. HuGo_87 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. 89.204.137.229 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search finds only download links, no news coverage or independent reviews, in fact not even any user reviews. This software has not yet achieved notability. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limit your search to get rid of the download link farms: google:ImDisk+site:microsoft.com shows links on Microsoft. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shows some links on Microsoft forums, posted by users! (WP:SPS). Also shows some other links that are from Microsoft Support but are not about the product and are pure accidents, such as: "Ein reaktivieren der Disks im Disk Management brachte auch nicht den gewuenschten Erfolg." Fleet Command (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software. References in article don't come close to WP:Reliable sources guidelines. As Looie496 notes, just a lot of download mirrors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe convert three Google scholar citations to better references. My link search for diddy.boot-land.net was not convincing. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what diddy.boot-land.net has to do with anything, but the three Google Scholar links just show abstracts; notability requires non-trivial reliable source coverage. None of those articles are about the software per se, and a passing mention doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diddy.boot-land.net is the source in the 3rd reference. Thanks for checking the scholar hits. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability and reliable sources requirements. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - using the search links on this page I found two reviews [1] and [2]. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are WP:SPS and hence not even acceptable, let alone evidence for notability. Fleet Command (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I found a book [3] listing ImDisk as forensic tool, and a rather dubious page with six YouTube videos: [4]. –89.204.137.229 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Yes, a passing mention. No significant coverage. I guess phone directory also lists ImDisk too. ;) Fleet Command (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No need to be so rude. A phone book list everything. These sources mention just what they considered to be notable software for getting the job done. You can't expect most software to get any detail coverage, when there isn't much to say about it, other than a sentence describing what it does. There isn't much to write about. Dream Focus 17:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly! If there isn't much to say about it, and we can't find detailed coverage, it doesn't get a page on Wikipedia! You're arguing against yourself, so uh, thanks, I guess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Obviously someone trying to promote their own product/company. —SW— ^spout 16:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith please. The user started Wikipedia on July 25th 2005 and created this article on May 17th 2009, with other edits about a variety of things over a long period of time. Dream Focus 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with assuming good faith? He has checked the article and it seems promotional to him. You should really stop accusing people who comment on this article's notability of being "rude" or "not assuming good faith". Comment on contents, not people. And if I may say so, you should not bludgeon the process. Fleet Command (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books shows results. Windows Forensic Analysis DVD Toolkit By Harlan Carvey, gives a description of it and a picture on what it looks like running. Google translator says the main language on the site is Italian, although I think that's a mistake, and its actually Swedish. Might be more results if someone could search for that language. Anyway, one reliable source mentions it. You can't really expect to find anything more than what they mention for software like this, there just not much else to say. Nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the book you refer to mentions ImDish a few times, but in the context of mentioning it as a good free program that can be used, with no greater coverage. By no stretch of the imagination could that be significatn coverage. Second of all, you argue that, since nothing more can be found, the page should be kept. This is the complete opposite of true; if we can't expect to find anything more, it should be deleted, not kept. Please stop !voting keep if your arguments say otherwise.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant you can't expect more coverage than the details listed in there, so that one source counted as reliable sources. Dream Focus 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, if there is nothing more than the coverage in there, the article fails to have multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. A source soes not become reliable on a particular subject because there is not much to say about it and the source says it all. What that means is that the subject itself is not notable and is unsuitable to have an article on Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne <font color = "darkblue" ^talk 23:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dream Focus, we can't and we don't expect more coverage but we also do not expect things that do not have more coverage to appear in Wikipedia, per WP:N. Fleet Command (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right. Your statement is a delete argument with the word keep in front of it. Hopefully the closer will see it the same way.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well established category of software (See List of RAM disk software), and this particular utility is free and useful. Yes, I know that being useful doesn't merit Wikipedia coverage, but I expect others to provide the needed coverage as part of the rescue effort. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a voting booth. So, if you do not have a reason for keeping the article other than "I expect others", don't even expect us to consider your entry. Fleet Command (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - An administrator considers the entries and decides whether to keep the article, or not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that. I was reminding him that administrators have certain instructions regarding entries: Vote does not replace consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I'm not seeing much in the way of independent coverage. Wikipedia is not a software catalogue. Reyk _YO! 10:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (either via Google News/Books or in the article -- a blog entry, an online how-to page, a single sentence & illustration in a computer forensics book does not meet this standard). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:30, 11 July 2011 (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.