Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Vista Optimizer

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Smerdis, I think you're reading NTEMP wrong. The point is that if an article is notable per wp:GNG, then it is always notable. The point is not that something must be of lasting import for some mysterious unspecified amount of time before we can consider it notable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NTEMP specifically entertains the idea that a later review of notability my be required through further deletion discussions, going as far as "As a result articles may be proposed for deletion ... months or even years after being earlier considered.", it isn't saying your version of "one it's notable per GNG it is always notable", merely that continual coverage isn't a requirement --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:58, 19 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).~~ Please do have a look in 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]
One reliable source is sufficient for an article to show its notability. Could you explain how the rest aren't reliable sources though? And by the way, not all sources are perfect sources. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this isn't the major question at issue here, for your future information WP:N states "Multiple sources are generally expected." This isn't a blanket ban to inclusion of topics with only a single source, but it would generally be seen as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means more that sources that can prove the article's notability, using secondary sources. That means the source doesn't have to be 100% reliable, though it needs at least some reliability, but to prove the subject's reliability. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:56, 21 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]

I agree that it all hinges on the question if #3/#4 are WP:RS, but IMHO they are not; they look much more like typical affiliate sites which will write just about everything to get share of the sale which comes through their site; if so, they don't qualify as WP:RS (information of affiliates is always WP:PROMO). Ipsign (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say that [1] is pretty balanced for something being used as a promo piece. The site does look like it may well be centered on pushing one product (not this one), but the review looks reasonable, maybe even negative. Hobit (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the review is negative, but the site which shows it, is built to push something, it shouldn't be considered as WP:RS for WP:N purposes (they write about the product not because they think that the product is worth mentioning, but because of some other reasons). From other point of view: how long it would take to build such a pseudo-review site to get a dozen of products included into Wikipedia? It is not WP:V and not WP:RS. 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are advertising, it is fine. But the Wikipedia article must not advertise. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how avertising sources can be considered WP:RS, especially when it concerns notability. Ipsign (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in WP:RS not to use advertising sources? And because the sources are explaining the importance about this product, they do indicate notability. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in WP:RS not to use advertising sources?

That would be Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources, "promotional in nature" Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 19 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 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. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' The article was created by one of my mentees, and appears to be well enough sourced to meet our notability guidelines. I should also point out that WP:MILL is firstly an essay (as opposed to WP:NOT and WP:GNG) and secondly just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it CANNOT be notable - which this product appears to be. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable and important software suite. Id agree with Hobit that we have substantial coverage in three independent and reliable sources (PC Mag, software informer and registrycleanertested). Additional sources have now been added - such is the notability of the suite that the PC Mag review was syndicated in full to Washington Post! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a fifth source, looks like an IP editor chanced upon the article and mistakenly "consolodated" away a review by PC Advisor (magazine) (easy mistake to make as most of the review was syndicated from PC World, but PC Advisor do seem to have offered their own independent verdict.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Washington Post, you could look at it the other way, it's so unimportant the Washington Post didn't review it themselves but bought in content from elsewhere. Realistically I don't think you can draw either conclusion from the Washington Post's inclusion. Regarding PC Advisor - it's the same reviewer, the same review and the same conclusion. The fact that a one sentence summary is offered to fit the format that PC Advisor uses doesn't change it, I can't see how it could be considered to be independant verdict, it's clearly based on the review, with no evidence that whoever wrote it did anything more than read the review. Even if I go along with the view it's adding something, the GNG view of non-trivial coverage isn't met, a one sentence summarisation is nothing more than trivial. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admitedly WP use their own reviewers for absolutely top tier software releases like the Vista OS itself. But from a quick search of various mid ranking programmes (e.g. Crimson editor) they dont seem to review those at all. Also , WP:GNG makes no mention of rejecting syndicated coverage. I remain convinced that both the WP and PC Advisor review confers notability, so IMO this quality article meets GNG several times over. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't say that syndicated coverage is rejected by GNG, merely that they are the same coverage, not multiple unique pieces of coverage. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per keep voters. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Porchcorpter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PC, remember that this isn't a vote - it's a discussion. "Keep per keep voters" will likely be effectively disregarded. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worm, thanks. But I meant that I agree with the keep voters and I've got nothing more to add. :-) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is just an essay, not a guideline or a policy. PC World reviewed it, and this review was seen as notable enough for the Washington Post to reprint it [2]. Other reliable sources have already been found and mentioned by others. Dream Focus 12:51, 21 September 2011 (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.