Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Vista Optimizer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:08, 18 September 2011

Advanced Vista Optimizer

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

One of innumerable very minor system utilities with no encyclopedic significance. Fails WP:MILL as the clearest policy-based statement of their non-relevance here. These programs exist. Their basic existence is indeed supported by mention in magazine reviews. However that's all we get, and all we're ever likely to get. Re-stating this sort of basic "parts catalogue" content doesn't add to the body of an encyclopedia.

See WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare for another similar article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG. WP:MILL is not a policy, and I do not see any other good reason that this article should be deleted. I could be convinced that creation of and a merge with the publisher's page could be worthwhile per WP:PRODUCT, but we do not need an AfD for that. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because notability is forever, sources need to establish, not merely that a product exists, but that it has abiding historical, technical, or cultural significance of the sort that will be remembered over generations and centuries. Software tied to the inner workings of a specific operating system will be hard pressed to meet such a test. Routine reviews establishing that this product is for sale and can be made to work do not establish that kind of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This product IS notable permanently. Please see the sources. This product IS modern. In what way is it ancient? Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See my comment in WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare regarding the notability. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for SystemCare. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same to my reply to your vote in WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Looks like the delete voters here are clueless and dramatic. They are still voting to delete the page despite my responses to their vote(s). A strong suggestion is to look in and read the article. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see my newer comments in WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's analyze sources which establish WP:N. As of now, there are 5 references in the article. 1st is WP:SPS, clearly doesn't count for WP:N purposes. Second is PCMag, recognized [{WP:RS]]. The rest (software.informer, registercleanerstested, and ciol), are merely affiliate sites, and IMHO clearly don't qualify as WP:RS. So, we have only one WP:RS to justify notability, and it clearly falls short of multiple sources requirement of WP:N. Verdict: delete. Ipsign (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep source 2 is clearly a RS. 3 and 4 would seem to be also. 1 isn't and 5 looks like a press release. Looks over the bar of WP:N, but just barely. A merge into a joint article on the different registry cleaners/optimizers would probably be ideal but AFAIK there is no such article. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the notability arguments above. I would suggest that the content is refactored so it can be included in a List, perhaps something (or a new page). I have no objection to the content being included in the encyclopedia but I don't think it is correct as a stand-alone article. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''Delete''' Let's analyze sources which establish [[WP:N]]. As of now, there are 5 references in the article. 1st is [[WP:SPS]], clearly doesn't count for [[WP:N]] purposes. Second is PCMag, recognized [{WP:RS]]. The rest (software.informer, registercleanerstested, and ciol), are merely affiliate sites, and IMHO clearly don't qualify as [[WP:RS]]. So, we have only one [[WP:RS]] to justify notability, and it clearly falls short of ''multiple sources'' requirement of [[WP:N]]. Verdict: delete. [[User:Ipsign|Ipsign]] ([[User talk:Ipsign|talk]]) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 *'''weak keep''' source 2 is clearly a RS.  3 and 4 would seem to be also.  1 isn't and 5 looks like a press release.  Looks over the bar of WP:N, but just barely.   A '''merge''' into a joint article on the different registry cleaners/optimizers would probably be ideal but AFAIK there is no such article. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' because of the notability arguments above. I would suggest that the content is refactored so it can be included in a List, perhaps something [[Category:Lists of software|in here]] (or a new page). I have no objection to the content being included in the encyclopedia but I don't think it is correct as a stand-alone article. --[[User:Bill|Bill]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User_talk:Bill|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bill|contribs]])</sup> 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)