Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartDefrag

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmartDefrag

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

Non-notable small piece of software. The only sources I can find are database style or download links, and so fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:Notability (software) as it's not significant in it's field. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cNet review does not grant any notability. Minor freeware application that has no specific notability or grounds for inclusion as either an article, or on the list of defrag software (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added more references.

A Google search for "smartdefrag blog -softonic -cnet".^[1] returns some 210,000 results from a number of different sources and I believe it should be enough to meet both WP:GNG and WP:Notability (software) criteria; also, the article has now no less reliable sources than Defraggler's one so, if these are not enough, Defraggler should be AfD too (Nothing against Defraggler, it's a good tool; just for example! :) ).

Regarding its being "not significant" or "minor", I am currently testing a number of different defragmenting tools and I do believe it is no less noteworthy of other tools listed in List of defragmentation software, offering a combination of features not present in any of the other products.

It's only MHO and, of course, it might be considered original research, but consulting third-party sources the facts should be clear. I think also that the policy "no original research" relative to the SW might be revised in particular for freeware or trialware because, with respect to the SW features, there is no more reliable source than the SW itself: to examine directly the SW is much more effective than any other source analysis. --Parsec09 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might just apply to Defraggler too :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good free software. I vote to keep also. I have installed this program on many users computers and it helps a lot. It has scheduled defrags and automatic an auto-defrag mode that turns on depending on a slider for user inactivity. It is ture that it also server IOBIT as a source of free advertising since some may decide to buy their other products, but it is a good free program nonetheless.--Solarjdp69 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — Solarjdp69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Please read WP:N for what actually constitutes notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I might be considered an inclusionist: even if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a directory neither a paper encyclopedia, WP is indeed full of lists (such as the list of Interstate Highways in Ohio, to name one) and often they are indeed useful, especially in the case of lists of products from which you want to choose one. You might look on google, and scan a list of a few million repeated and often inappropriate elements, or use one of the facets of WP to examine a list of some tens of "notable" elements with their description and references, and I see nothing wrong with that use of WP.--Parsec09 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about a list, we're talking about a stand-alone article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, I'm sorry but I can't understand what you mean. I took other articles from List of defragmentation software as example to write mine, and it seems to me that it is now not less notable than others. May I ask you what you intend?--Parsec09 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parsec, this is the third time this is being pointed out to you, but your argument basically consists of "there are other articles about much less notable subjects, so this one must be allowed too". This isn't a valid argument. Just because there are other similar articles that doesn't make this subject notable. We're considering the notability of this subject on its own merits, not in comparison to others. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reviews [1] - detailed, [2] - questioning integrity of this one, because the user reviews don't match the magazine - but its there, [3], tons more I found. Despite the claims of SPAs User:Parsec09 and User:Solarjdp69, I am not finding this "good free software", but I am finding it notible. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:15, 8 July 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.

^ "Google search for "smartdefrag blog -softonic -cnet"". Retrieved 21 June 2012.

[1] "Google search for "smartdefrag blog -softonic -cnet"". Retrieved 21 June 2012.

[1]