Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyDefrag

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MyDefrag (edit | 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 fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is getting embarrassing. A short time at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software and this one too?? A DeFrag program, described in the second sentence as "inclusion of a scripting language" is not notable??? You can google about that fact that the word is spelled with 2 R's - EmbaRRass, NOT embarass. Aside from my self-interest in seeing that the work I put into PerfectDisk and Raxco not be deleted, the efforts by others to start DiskTuna/DiskTune, MyDefrag, TouchMail, GyazMail, et al - shows that there's something "wrong with the system." As for the "sock puppet" problem (TouchMail @ 00:51, 26 October 2017), perhaps I can risk saying that there are holes in the shoes.
  Even defining a scripting language takes some effort. Implementing one takes even more. Someone needs to think about the Cat-for-sale that plays the violin (story) - the potential buyer then says "but not as good as Jascha Heifetz."
  More time is needed on editing and less time on nominating for deletion etc. etc.
  The sock puppets and paid editors (yes, I was unaware of this problem until not long ago) will not go away any more than the people who (name whatever is your pet problem). Pi314m (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No obvious notability. The argument above seems to suggest that since it has a scripting language it should be notable, but that's not what notable means. I understand the frustration of seeing hard work go unappreciated, but that happens some times. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2017 (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.