- 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 no consensus. At least the promotionalism seems to have been addressed by a rewrite. Sandstein 06:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
PerfectDisk
- PerfectDisk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable and promotional in tone and wording. (Advertisement.) Wikipedia:CORPSPAM, Wikipedia:V, WP:PROMOTION FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 00:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Author feedback
The nomination says "Not notable and promotional in tone and wording. (Advertisement.)"
The Wiki "packaging" for the nomination says "Find sources" and gives a list of suggestions.
Following Wikipedia's words:
- The first item I clicked on at the nomination is the the one on the right of the screen: WP reference.
The first item that came up is titled "Diskeeper vs. PerfectDisk." (It's an article from TechNet, a publication now owned/controlled by Microsoft)
Obviously something doesn't "click" - until I added PerfectDisk to List of defragmentation software, WP_Ref's #1 wasn't even listed!
- The Wiki policy pointed to by the note now atop the PerfectDisk article, WP:Guide to deletion, says:
- A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged.
Is there nothing that can be salvaged?
As for promotional, why would I promote something I've never even evaluated/tried.
(see TALK page re why/how; Raxco Rabbit V.A.S.T. is the closest I've ever come to Raxco, and that was an evaluation, on a VAX long since gone; my then-employer chose Diskeeper for their Vaxen).
Speaking of DEC/VAX/VMS, for those who've used or even ever heard of Digital Equipment Corporation, it's an embarrassment to the concept of Wikipedia that ... look at the note atop OpenVMS - "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement..." Is that a collective best? Does this nomination encourage? Pi314m ( talk) 05:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment My brief search shows some news, one short review and few pages in books about Windows NT (for NT version). I will post these later. As of current article content, TNT is the best way to go... I will try basic rewrite to stub-like state. Maybe this article can be saved after all. Pavlor ( talk) 12:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Scannell, Ed (October 6, 1997). "Raxco´s NT utility defragments disks". InfoWorld. Vol. 19, no. 40. IDG. p. 46. ISSN 0199-6649. News about NT release, mostly based on company announcement and words of company representative.
- Freed, Les (August 2002). "Defrag with PerfectDisk". PC Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 14. Ziff Davis. p. 56. ISSN 0888-8507. First look at PerfectDisk 2000 Version 5.0. Half page review, best source I found so far.
- Dragan, Richard V. (May 24, 2005). "defraggers, PerfectDisk 7.0". PC Magazine. Vol. 24, no. 9. Ziff Davis. p. 98. ISSN 0888-8507. Short mini-review among other such applications (1/6 page).
- There are several short news about various versions (eg. original VMS release in 1990), but these aren´t substantial for notability. Hard to judge, I´m not sure this is enough to estabilish notability. However, I will try article rewrite, if I find the time. Pavlor ( talk) 06:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete a WP:TNT deletion wouldn't be unreasonable here, the content is awful. (e.g. "Both this product and Diskeeper, which is the competitor that keeps Raxco on its toes were rated negatively in their most recent iterations for"). I see no claim of meeting GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Weakkeep After article rewrite and review of published sources. There seem to be also some online sources (pcmag.com, pcworld.com etc.), I will post these later. Pavlor ( talk) 06:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Best online sources I found so far:
- computerworld.com: [1] (2005; comparison of PerfectDisk 7 and Diskeeper 9)
- pcworld.com [2] (2010; mid-size review of version 11)
- techrepublic.com:
[3] (2010; review of version 11),
[4] (2010; review of version 11 Server)
Pavlor (
talk) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I checked the references posted and it either was a trivial mention of the product or or a review which provided no indication of notability.
This is generally a case of sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong.
FockeWulf FW 190 (
talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then check again. There you have broad coverage in multiple reliable souces, enough to estabilish notability.
Pavlor (
talk) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to only prove that there is a lot of trivial coverage which does not establish notability. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 19:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then check again. There you have broad coverage in multiple reliable souces, enough to estabilish notability.
Pavlor (
talk) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I checked the references posted and it either was a trivial mention of the product or or a review which provided no indication of notability.
This is generally a case of sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong.
FockeWulf FW 190 (
talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Best online sources I found so far:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. At least the promotionalism seems to have been addressed by a rewrite. Sandstein 06:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
PerfectDisk
- PerfectDisk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable and promotional in tone and wording. (Advertisement.) Wikipedia:CORPSPAM, Wikipedia:V, WP:PROMOTION FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 00:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Author feedback
The nomination says "Not notable and promotional in tone and wording. (Advertisement.)"
The Wiki "packaging" for the nomination says "Find sources" and gives a list of suggestions.
Following Wikipedia's words:
- The first item I clicked on at the nomination is the the one on the right of the screen: WP reference.
The first item that came up is titled "Diskeeper vs. PerfectDisk." (It's an article from TechNet, a publication now owned/controlled by Microsoft)
Obviously something doesn't "click" - until I added PerfectDisk to List of defragmentation software, WP_Ref's #1 wasn't even listed!
- The Wiki policy pointed to by the note now atop the PerfectDisk article, WP:Guide to deletion, says:
- A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged.
Is there nothing that can be salvaged?
As for promotional, why would I promote something I've never even evaluated/tried.
(see TALK page re why/how; Raxco Rabbit V.A.S.T. is the closest I've ever come to Raxco, and that was an evaluation, on a VAX long since gone; my then-employer chose Diskeeper for their Vaxen).
Speaking of DEC/VAX/VMS, for those who've used or even ever heard of Digital Equipment Corporation, it's an embarrassment to the concept of Wikipedia that ... look at the note atop OpenVMS - "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement..." Is that a collective best? Does this nomination encourage? Pi314m ( talk) 05:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment My brief search shows some news, one short review and few pages in books about Windows NT (for NT version). I will post these later. As of current article content, TNT is the best way to go... I will try basic rewrite to stub-like state. Maybe this article can be saved after all. Pavlor ( talk) 12:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Scannell, Ed (October 6, 1997). "Raxco´s NT utility defragments disks". InfoWorld. Vol. 19, no. 40. IDG. p. 46. ISSN 0199-6649. News about NT release, mostly based on company announcement and words of company representative.
- Freed, Les (August 2002). "Defrag with PerfectDisk". PC Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 14. Ziff Davis. p. 56. ISSN 0888-8507. First look at PerfectDisk 2000 Version 5.0. Half page review, best source I found so far.
- Dragan, Richard V. (May 24, 2005). "defraggers, PerfectDisk 7.0". PC Magazine. Vol. 24, no. 9. Ziff Davis. p. 98. ISSN 0888-8507. Short mini-review among other such applications (1/6 page).
- There are several short news about various versions (eg. original VMS release in 1990), but these aren´t substantial for notability. Hard to judge, I´m not sure this is enough to estabilish notability. However, I will try article rewrite, if I find the time. Pavlor ( talk) 06:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete a WP:TNT deletion wouldn't be unreasonable here, the content is awful. (e.g. "Both this product and Diskeeper, which is the competitor that keeps Raxco on its toes were rated negatively in their most recent iterations for"). I see no claim of meeting GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Weakkeep After article rewrite and review of published sources. There seem to be also some online sources (pcmag.com, pcworld.com etc.), I will post these later. Pavlor ( talk) 06:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Best online sources I found so far:
- computerworld.com: [1] (2005; comparison of PerfectDisk 7 and Diskeeper 9)
- pcworld.com [2] (2010; mid-size review of version 11)
- techrepublic.com:
[3] (2010; review of version 11),
[4] (2010; review of version 11 Server)
Pavlor (
talk) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I checked the references posted and it either was a trivial mention of the product or or a review which provided no indication of notability.
This is generally a case of sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong.
FockeWulf FW 190 (
talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then check again. There you have broad coverage in multiple reliable souces, enough to estabilish notability.
Pavlor (
talk) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to only prove that there is a lot of trivial coverage which does not establish notability. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 19:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then check again. There you have broad coverage in multiple reliable souces, enough to estabilish notability.
Pavlor (
talk) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I checked the references posted and it either was a trivial mention of the product or or a review which provided no indication of notability.
This is generally a case of sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong.
FockeWulf FW 190 (
talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Best online sources I found so far:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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.