Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auslogics Disk Defrag (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Weakly and mainly per lack of argumentation for deletion. Given the current state of the article, WP:G11 is nearly applicable. henrik•talk 21:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics Disk Defrag

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

The article was previously submitted through AfC and rejected. It appears the author simply bypassed the official process and created the article anyway.

Also the article is a clear advert. Sabre ball^{t c} 13:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the author did not "simply bypass the official process and create the article anyway", but an admin moved it into article space, because I approved the article of it being moved into article space, and another member of WPAFC also approved too, but the article was protected from creation. Check the edit history. --B music ian 13:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So... you're saying we should or should not delete it? --Sabre ball^{t c} 13:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will choose to abstain. Regards B music ian 13:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was the one who moved this out of AfC space to main space, after unprotecting the title per user request, and after being told that the reviewing editor who had initially denied the request for creation had withdrawn his objection. I was involved because I had salted the original page name after several recreations and deletions. Discussion can be seen at User talk:Nolelover#Auslogics Disk Defrag. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article has quite a few editors' reviews from download sites; even a couple of such reviews were previously considered enough to keep. That said, the article definitely needs complete rewrite, but this problem can be solved out of AfD. BTW, how does all this discussion above (including the nominator's comment) is relevant for AfD? The issue of breaking the AfC process should have been discussed at WP:AN/I, and no actual deletion rationale was suggested here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ihcoyc and Bmusician, it was accepted at AfC so original rationale is invalid. Sourcing is plentiful. A412 (Talk • C) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm involved as the editor who reviewed the AfC and accepted it (although Ihcoyc actually moved it), so I'll abstain here, but I just want to comment on the nom's rationale. Articles for Creation allows you to submit a page as many times as you want, to as many reviewers as you want. Furthermore, a page can be accepted even if not technically submitted, which I've done many times to pages that have been improved and the newbie will ask us to check out. There was no lapse in process here. Good faith objection, but a common misperception among non-AFC'ers. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Also the article is a clear advert." Not IMBO (in my biased opinion). While some words aren't neutral, the article demonstrates notability of its subject. If it does so by mentioning how well the product did both in downloads and in tests by 3rd parties, then that is a requirement for Wikipedia, not a valid reason for deletion. OTOH, I think that no single defragger is notable enough to deserve an article in its own right yet, although this is one of those that come close. The defragmentation process itself is notable and deserves an article, and the "Auslogics Disk Defrag" article should be one chapter in a long Defragmentation utilities article, ie - it should be merged into such a thing. BTW, the "10 million users" reasoning is flawed, but that has been tagged already. 217.251.155.99 (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2012 (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.