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 keep. John254 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vopt[edit]

Vopt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A defrag utility. All sources are either generic or listings. This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage, as far as the sources tell. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Bow Systems VoptXP

RATINGS: Interface: 8, General usability: 8, Feature set:10, Documentation: 8, OVERALL: 9

VoptXP is the fastest defragmenter of the lot, probably because it defragments when there is absolutely no other activity. Still, for most people it is more than adequate, and much, much faster than Disk Defragmenter. Its $40 price tag makes it a decent value when you consider that it also includes an array of diagnostics and maintenance utilities. With VoptXP, you can automatically remove cookies, Inter-net history files, and temporary files; test your memory usage; and even perform error checking.

Then there is the Jerry Pournelle quote:

Chaos Manor Users Choice Awards: "For about the twentieth year in a row the Chaos Manor Users Choice Award for disk defragmenter goes to Golden Bow's VOPT."

Surely it isn't necessary to list all 20 of Jerry's articles, many of which appeared in print in Byte magazine? Then there are the references to Vopt in the well-respected "Security Now" podcasts. If both Steve Gibson and Jerry Pournelle have referred to this product, then it is notable. RitaSkeeter 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that Guy misrepresented the sources as well. I will WP:AGF in that it is common for spammy articles to "source" generic statements to major books, but in this case, I think it's clear that the books actually dealt with the product. If not, we can easily replace them with sources accessible through Google Books or A9. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well why not put the Jerry Pournelle stuff in? It distinguishes the product form others and makes it an article instead of a directory entry. Plus I'm a Pournelle fan (though only in treeware). Guy (Help!) 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to put the Pournelle stuff in, then put it in. What's stopping you? RitaSkeeter 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been here for a while and still contains not one source which is primarily about this product. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, article subjects should have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial independent coverage. The debate above asserts that it has, but that information is not in the article. "ZOMG! Notable" is all very well, but the article reads as an entry in a directory of defragmentation utilities, drawn form a number of reviews of defragmentation utilities, and that is not what an encyclopaedia does. I am quite prepared to believe that it is significant, but it doesn't look it from the article. And I am a heartless deletionist bastard who dislikes directory entries on commercial products, because I've been abused by too many spammers. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate your candor in explaining why it is that you take out your misplaced anger at perfectly viable articles such as this one, the article provides the claims of notability and sourcing you keep on stating don't exist, and were there when you marked the article for deletion. There seems to be little support for your contention that the sources provided don't just retention. Your responsibilities in nominating any article for deletion are well-described at Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, and your acknowledgement that this article could meet your own personal standards places you squarely under this policy's requirement that "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion.", yet I seem to be unable to find any evidence of any such effort, which further undermines the validity of this and other such AfDs improperly submitted. Alansohn 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I've been abused by too many spammers" is simply nonsense. If you are assuming that the article was written to spam WP, then you are violating the primary WP:AGF assumption. RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, it seems like you're overlooking an obvious way around the apparent requirement to edit or tag before AfD. If the nominator feels that the page can not be improved, there are no other obligations. On the diff you supplied above, only references 3 and 6 were actually about disk defraggers, but reference 6 didn't even mention Vopt. None of the references mention Vopt in the first 3 paragraphs. If that's the best that can be found to establish notability, I can see why someone would call this article beyond improvement and immediately go for AfD. --JJLatWiki 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any edits by Orangemike so I assume we are all waiting for someone else to do it. RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But in the smaller world of defragmentation utilities, it's extremely rare for there to be an article about a specific defrag utility." I'm sorry but there are already articles about Contig, PageDefrag, WDD and Diskeeper. Why not just nuke them all? RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not strongly opposed to nuking them all. They all skirt the fringe of the notability standard. An article that says there ARE such utilities and a handful of examples should be adequate. --JJLatWiki 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a list of utilities, but it was deleted from the defragmentation article and can be found on Mr Edwards' talk page (oh dear, now some clever fellow has deleted it. Such is democracy, I guess RitaSkeeter 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)). Alternatively, the category on Optimization software already exists. The reason why each article is listed separately is to provide the level of detail and sources required by the notability requirements. There are links to reviews if a review is reqiured, and WP is not the place to write software reviews. There is a similar debate raging about the JkDefrag article, and I wish the posters here would rather spend some time working on the articles instead of arguing about them. It's becoming a trifle tiresome. --RitaSkeeter 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing a list of such utilities. I propose an article about such utilities with a handful of the most notable examples. Hopefully there would be some technical differences in how each utility actually works or how their algorythms differ. I'm also not proposing reviews or how well each program has done in the reviews. Maybe some use a Microsoft provided API while others use their own technique, and maybe others run only from a DOS or non-Windows OS. Maybe some use some active technique for preventing fragmentation. If they all use the same Windows API, who really cares if one is faster than the other? Even if it is today, was it also faster 5 years ago and will it be faster 5 years from now? By the way, this is the first I've been involved in this family of articles and I simply offering my opinion on the AfD. I don't care enough to do much more than that. --JJLatWiki 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are a dime a dozen. How about some editing work? --Donn Edwards 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added further referencs to verify the "fast" claim:
  • "Disk Organizer "Vopt Is something of a miracle. It performs Its disk reorganization chores In seconds, Instead of the minutes and even hours ..." in Personal Computing Magazine v.11 no.7-9 1987.
  • "VoptXP is the fastest defragmenter of the lot, probably because ..." in PC Today Software Reviews February 2004.
  • "Vopt 8.20 is a fast and easy to use defragmenter ..." in CHIP magazine, 2007
Hope this helps! --Donn Edwards 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I was saying is that "fast" isn't special and a claim that is probably made for every competing program. Even with numerous references saying it's fast, the most that should be said in an encyclopedia is, "Vopt is often described as, "fast"." Are any of the sources about Vopt? Or are all the sources about defragging in general or optimizing a computer in general and Vopt is a well-regarded option for handling the task? Basically all that these references do is prove that Vopt exists, Vopt is a defragger, some reviewers like or prefer Vopt, in reviews it is often fast or even fastest relative to some other defraggers, and it has recieved awards of unknown significance. For some people that may not satisfy the notability standard that says, "sources address the subject directly in detail". --JJLatWiki 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article too short and generic?
  • Is there a conflict of interest?
  • Is the "notability" of the product still in question?
  • Are the sources unaccepable?
I am finding this entire debate vague and unhelpful in resolving the CONTENT of the article. Is it possible for you gentlemen to restrict your comments to the article in question, and what possible edits could be made to improve it? Thanks in advance RitaSkeeter 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone has corrected the original issue that landing this in AfD: notability. Still the only sources cited do NOT address the subject of the article directly or in detail. And based on that, I have changed my recommendation by striking the "keep" and now suggest only merging with a less specific article. But I doubt the AfD will succeed at this point. So this may be for naught. --JJLatWiki 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insn't it just great when no-one can answer a simple question!? This article was marked for deleteion because someone thought it might be a spam attempt. It is a product that has been available for two decades, and comes highly recommended by people who understand computers, and which is mentioned in ALL the sources cited. Of course none of this matters because no-one actualy knows why the article should be deleted, but it should, purely because it can be deleted by the the folks who "care" so much about WP that they cannot follow the basic procedure: "This software-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Am I the only one who can read, but AfD does not expand the article or improve WP. --Donn Edwards 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the AfD nomination is spelled out at the top of this page as a basic failure to meet to the notability standard: "This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage". That standard has still not been met. Being "mentioned in ALL the sources cited" does not quite make it all the way to meeting the standard of "sources address the subject directly in detail". "Addressing" the subject and "mentioning" the subject aren't quite the same thing. Asking other editors to expand the article with the stub tag also does not address the basic failure to establish notability. As this debate has progressed, the article has been expanded and turned into an even bigger advertisement with summaries of the various reviews and recommendations. There is still no substance that explains why Vopt, among its numerous competitors, is special. For example, the current article says, "[Vopt's] method of defragmentation is highly efficient", but never describes Vopt's method. Unless that "method" is to do an incomplete defragmentation which I infer from another sentence that says, "The convenience of quick procesing time is offset by less optimal performance". With some minor copyeditting, Vopt could easily take this article and use it for their advertising. Deleting this article would not harm WP and may bring more credibility to WP by removing another trivial article. --JJLatWiki 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I think you misspoke when you said, "is mentioned in ALL the sources cited". Or maybe my Find function isn't working on that page, but when I look at reference 9, I can't find where Vopt is mentioned. --JJLatWiki 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) "a defrag utility". Presumably software of this category is somehow unwelcome in the fine pages of WikiPedia.
b) "all sources are ... generic": The extensive qiotes above are hardly generic, but refer to the product specifically and by name.
c) "all sources are ... listings". If an article providing multiple reviews of several products in the same category constitues a "listing", then the articles are being deliberately misread.
d) "not been the primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage". Again, this is overly harsh and unneccesary: all the coverage listed is independent, and to describe it as trivial is a disservice to the discussion.
This leaves the question of why the article should be "allowed" on WP at all: because Vopt is a long-standing product in this category (preceeding Windows itself by several years), with as much right to be covered as Diskeeper or the Windows Disk Defragmenter. In fact, the article provides more information about Vopt than either of the other articles provide about their respective products. Since the article is neither spam not an advertisement, what reasons remain for deleting it other than the obvious bias, ignorance and prejudice of those who want it deleted in the face of the facts stated in the article.
"Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". I suggest the admins withdraw the deletion, and allow the article to be improved, if the existing improvements aren't already good enough. 41.243.102.199 14:46, 22 September 2007 (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.
More