BryceN ( talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Reply It's nothing to do with my opinion it's to do with Wikipedia's guidelines. I feel that unique features are a form of notability. What criteria can we use for notability, other than Hm2k's opinion? Existence of a wikipedia article on the company should (I feel) not be sufficient to merit notability - especially since an editor can simply create a Wikipedia article, thus self-referentially creating "notability". User Hm2k has removed a half dozen services from this list, claiming they are not notable. If users adding content can find notability in the same way it will save further complications. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Reply It seems there's actually a lot of sources for this service, including an article from the New York Times, which I'll probably use to support notability. SugarSync is at present the only red-linked entry in the table. Unless *actual* sources are forthcoming, I recommend that SugarSync be again removed from this list. Per this edit, an IP claims that SugarSync is very notable! Many articles have reported about that. 48 Personal Encryption vs Secure Key Management.47 please add it has client side encryption.45 Column for "Allows Backup of Servers" as well as a delineation between Consumer & Business.41 F-Secure Younited service is NOT "zero knowledge"/personal encryption.34 Differentiation between real "Backup Software" and "File Synchronization" Tools.27 External hard drive support for Dropbox.24 The Fabrik Ultimate Backup service has closed.15 Spideroak supports Hybrid Online Backup.12 Public Internet file hosting misleading.5 RFC on notability required for inclusion in this list article.4 Discussion on list article to be a "standalone list".
3 On the exclusion of SugarSync on the basis of stand-alone list argument.2 The use of "Stand-alone_list" for this article.
0 kommentar(er)
