Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone Backup Extractor

IPhone Backup Extractor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional article, lacks reliable sourced coverage of the subject. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging my talk page! If I understand, there are two questions: notability and whether it’s promotional.

I don’t think the page falls foul of elements 1 - 4 in WP:PROMOTION. It appears neutral and factual. Element 5 states that it’s promotional if not notable — thus your citation of WP:NPRODUCT. Makes sense!

(WP:NPRODUCT says “if a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself”, and “a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.” On Draft:Reincubate, I see kvng suggests “it may be possible to recast this as an article on iPhone Backup Extractor”.)

With reference to WP:GNG, the page’s citations group into these:

N Tech blogs & podcasts: hard to asses independence, reliability.
N Release note chronology: clearly not secondary.
N Review aggregators: not suitable for notability.
Y National press and government coverage around the royal award. Meets the WP:ORGCRIT tests for multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary. (Fits “substantial”, too.)

WP:PSTS provides examples of coverage that includes “a scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” and “an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product”. There are examples of both of these for the product in question at Draft:Reincubate. Would it be helpful if I edit the article's talk page proposing an edit to include them?

It’s been challenging digging out examples of similar products and companies on Wikipedia in order to see how it is done well. ScreenFlow is a much-edited and well-regard page, but has no notable sources at all. I’m not arguing WP:WHATABOUTX, but am curious to find good examples!

Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tgho can you enumerate which of the cited sources are in your 4th category? I'd like to review those.

Also I do think that the article has a WP:PROMOTIONAL slant to it but that should be able to be addressed through improvements to the article - deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is challenging to evaluate because at least half of the cited sources fail to meet WP:RS. If anyone is serious about keeping this article then delete all the WP:SPS then delete all sentences without a citation. I fail to recognize how this article meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in two cited sources: [1], [2] ~Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Kvng’s request for WP:ORGCRIT enumeration to support a keep... apologies for the delay, I’ve been reading forensics books.

Regarding notable award coverage, strong citations are the London Gazette entry here [3] and the Southwark News article [4] (which you mentioned in your comment).

On the “book passage” criteria, there are a number of books with passages on iPhone Backup Extractor in forensics, penetration testing, and as a system utility. A typical example is “Forensics Cookbook” (Mikhaylow, 2017). The following include passages on it, too, and some of these have specific citations in Draft:Reincubate:

Investigating the Cyber Breach (Muniz, Lakhani, 2018)
iOS Forensic Analysis: for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch (Morrissey, Campbell, 2010)
iOS Forensics Cookbook (Birani, Birani, 2016)
iPhone and iOS Forensics (Hoog, Strzempka, 2011)
Learning iOS Forensics (Epifani, Stirparo, 2015)
Learning iOS Penetration Testing (Yermalkar 2016)
Mastering Mobile Forensics (Tahiri, 2016)
Mobile Forensic Investigations (Reiber, 2015)
O’Reilly’s App Savvy (Yarmosh, 2010)
Operating System Forensics (Messier, 2016)
Practical Mobile Forensics (Mahalik, Tamma, Bommisetty, 2014)
Take Control of Your iPhone (Landau, 2009)

On the “scholarly article” criteria, there are several dozen papers with passages on the application and its use. Jonathan Zdziarski’s 2013 paper “iOS forensic investigative methods” has a chapter for it on page 110 (no deep-link I'm afraid). Similarly, 2012's “iPad 2 Logical Acquisition: Automated or Manual Examination?” (Ali, AlHosani, AlZarooni, Baggli) gives it a chapter (p. 119+) and makes reference to it throughout.

I believe these sources satisfy WP:RS and WP:ORGCRIT. I hope this is helpful. Tgho (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]