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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mottezen (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HP Data Protector[edit]

HP Data Protector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The sources included are either sponsored posts, primary sources, or articles where the topic is only mentioned in passing. The only good source is this: [1], and it's from 1992. There is also a user guide on google books, but I don't think it's independent from the subject. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After nominating this article, I tried searching "omniback" on google books and got lots of results. Omniback is described in the article as the previous name of this software, before 2004. I'm now thinking that this subject is only notable historically, under a name different than the title. What should we do in this situation? Mottezen (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See whether it is possible to use those sources to make the article better. Consider how in-depth they are. Cite the good ones in the article. And boldface the alternative article title so that the next editor along spots this more easily. ☺ The question that you have to answer for yourself is, on the basis of what you have found, whether you still want this entire edit history deleted; and whether it now seems possible to write a proper in-depth article from good in-depth sources. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's possible to write an unbiased article about this subject during the 1990s, but the promotional and primary nature of all the sources available since makes this current article little more than a promo page. I will withdraw my nomination, delete all the promotional text, but stop short of rewriting a new article because I'm not very familiar with backup softwares at all. Mottezen (talk) 18:27, 17 April 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.