Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undisker

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undisker

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability either. fetchcomms☛ 03:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cursory web search brought up notable result that establishes the notability of the subject. Although the article needs to include these result and be expanded to assert its notability, deletion is too extreme an action in this case. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show us the results? Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you see the link to Google search and Google Books search at the top of the page? Click on them to see the search results. (You don't have to dig too much.) There are two books that have mentioned Undisker in the same rank as that of notable software like ISOBuster. There are also Softpedia and CNET Download reviews. Fleet Command (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are trivial mentions. CNET and Softpedia aren't reviews, they are just a place to download the software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Trivial? Yes, and that is enough. Notability is not equal to being celebrity. Notability is relative to size of the matter and in that respect, Undisker is not only as notable as every other item in List of ISO image software, but also notable enough. Fleet Command (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not enough according to WP:N. Especially when it comes to download sites. Joe Chill (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, these are enough: http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22Undisker%22 Fleet Command (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That brings up four hits for me:
  PC annoyances
  
  "Undisker/Free trial; $40.44 to keep. http://www.undisker.com"
  
  Virtualization
  
  "You can download ISO image-making software from several vendors on the Internet for a trial period; for instance, try [other example omitted] or Undisker from http://www.undisker.com."
  
  Rob's Guide to Using Vmware
  
  "·Undisker www.undisker.com"
  
  Maldita PC!
  
  "WinISO [sic]. Versión de prueba gratuita. Precio: $29.95. http://www.undisker.com"
- Clearly you're getting other hits, since no reasonable person could consider any of these to "address the subject directly" or "in detail" as WP:N explicitly requires. Please link to them directly. These four hits might be sufficient for Wikiadvertisementcircular, but that's not what I signed up for. —Korath (Talk) 13:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you are right. The way you put it, it is so silly. Well... I don't know why I so insist on keeping things, unless they are so badly screwed up. May be it is good thing. May be not. But I guess this article is a goner anyways, so no need to go change my vote and write a few lines being ashamed and stuff like that. Fleet Command (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web search doesn't bring up even one instance of independent coverage of this product in the first hundred hits. (What it does bring up is loads of SEO and endless reprints of trivially-reworded material from the official site, which is only relevant to anything in that it makes me want to stop looking.) Every last google books hit consists of "[product name] [product url] [price]" in lists of similar software—the very model of insignificant coverage. The article itself was apparently written by the software's author and, while it reproduces the software's release history in excruciating and unverifiable detail, fails even to say what the program does. Heck, rm and Notepad "work with disk images" too. —Korath (Talk) 02:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Softpedia and CNet Download.com reviews don't really meet my definition of non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party source. I realize that this places me in some sort of zomg extreme deletionist camp. I'm sorry to those who feel that way, but I don't think Wikipedia should be reduced to a mirror of said software directory services. JBsupreme (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All book mentions brought up are little more than indications of the products existence as an alternative to other similar products; it's always mentioned in a list, with no critical commentary. It doesn't even have a Softpedia review, only a catalog entry there. Pcap ping 12:51, 24 December 2009 (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.