mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_SystemCare

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. article was improved a little - with additional external support - assertions and consensus appears to support that the subject meets the WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced SystemCare

[edit]
Advanced SystemCare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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 Vista Optimizer for another similar article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 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 Delete Deleters have convinced me on notability grounds. Article has been improved very recently with the addition of references, the most significant of which to me is the cnet 2010 top 10 download list, which I would consider RS. 68 million total downloads, 7th on the overall 2010 list, top of its product category (five antivirus apps ahead of it and a youtube downloader). The Another problem I have with the article is that it's still too much of a brochure--some non-neutral language and non-RS references, such as a company press release. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd you changed to delete. Your keep vote was correct. There is just one delete vote at the moment. Well, if you're going to vote delete, please specify a reason. Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:17, 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) 17:28, 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! 20:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you refer me to a policy which refers to requirement "that will be remembered over generations and centuries"? It is not in WP:NTEMP, this is for sure, and if it is not in any policy, it is not a valid argument in deletion discussion. Ipsign (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Sigh* Windows 7 is the latest version of Windows, and yet you say it will no longer be for sale. Where did you read that Microsoft had said that? How do you know that this product will no longer be for sale? For example, take a look at the PC game Quake, it does not seem to work on newer versions of Windows. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Both these products are like the anti-virus software such as AVG. Would you say that AVG has temporary notability? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This logic doesn't fly per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ipsign (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AVG (software)'s subject is a range of products, and they're broad enough in total to make some claim of significance. Even then, WP:PRODUCT often favours an article on the company, rather than their product. There is no AVG article of comparable narrow scope to Advanced SystemCare - such an article would be much narrower than our actual AVG, and similarly a target for AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, for what it's worth, Windows 7 has already been given a cutoff date starting in 2015.[1] Dozens of similar products existed for Windows 95 and 98 as well. Some of the businesses that made them are still around, but for the most part those products have been forgotten. I don't see anything that suggests this product won't share a similar fate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this kind of logic; while any subject on Wikipedia now is likely to be forgotten, arguments "I don't see anything that suggest this product won't..." are dangerously close to trying to invent crystal ball; WP:N is much simpler, and doesn't require conjecturing; it is based on 3rd-party coverage which exists right now, and is either satisfied or not. In this particular case (IMHO) it is on satisfied side. Ipsign (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The very concept of notability in Wikipedia, from the moment of its introduction, has always been about long term historical notability. As editors, we "attempt to make some sort of judgment" about "the long term historical notability" of a subject. Now, software that's been in use for two hundred years is probably notable. Hell, software that's been in use for fifty years is probably notable. But more recent software needs to show some kind of technical, historical, or at least cultural significance. References need to show, not only that it exists, but that it represents some kind of achievement likely to be remembered. Quake probably has cultural significance, and may also have technical significance.

But this article doesn't make much of a case for significance. And while a lot of current applications will continue to work, more or less, the next time Microsoft messes with the innards of Windows, software like this will be the first to break. It's a product with a certainly finite shelf life. It isn't historically important, not in the long term. It's not a subject for an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to interpret "long term historical notability" as "generations and centuries", do you have any reference to justify such interpretation (I'd say "years" will be much more appropriate)? Not to mention that what you've referred, is neither a policy nor a guideline, and current wording of Wikipedia guideline doesn't include any references to historical notability. It says explicitly: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.". So, to argue to delete the article, one should either say it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, or name one of WP:NOT items. Which one it will be? Ipsign (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to contributors on both sides of this debate, I think that the guidelines for WP:PRODUCT are not as well-developed as for other categories, and I think there are some as-yet-unresolved, ongoing projects to provide clearer guidance that we could use here, if only they were ready. I initially took the "well, clearly there's coverage--case closed" side, but I've thought about it some more. For me, the comparison is to something like today's leading screwdriver. Yes, various consumer sites will publish reports on which one sells the best at the moment and which ones on offer today are the most durable, or most easily gripped, or cheapest, or what have you. But who cares, from an encyclopedic point of view? Did the new product revolutionize the business? Did it spawn a whole new class of copycat competitors? Was it a branding triumph that entered the public consciousness? Did it become a byword for some positive (or negative) quality? As a Thought_experiment, if the company that made this product were to suddenly stop production forever, would anyone expect to find it in well-run encyclopedia the next day? The Ford Model T? Yes. The original IBM PC? Yes. The Aeron chair? Yes. Today's "leading Vista compatible optimizer suite"? No chance in hell. The point is not that it was notable and now is not. The point is that it never was notable. That consumer review coverage was all so much WP:ROUTINE. And I'm sure that whoever is producing today's most prestigious biodynamically-grown carrot, or the "smart" water with biggest annual turnover, or Google hits, or whatever, will hate me, but that's what I think. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. This product might warrant a mention in utility software or registry cleaner, articles that are even now in pretty poor shape. They remain in poor shape despite the time and energy wasted in the creation of dozens of spammy articles about individual products in these categories. But a judgment that "this is notable software" means that '500 years from now, at least specialist historians studying the impact of Microsoft operating systems will want to remember this particular product by name'. Especially where the possibility of commercial conflict of interest exists, this is what it means to be a notable product. I remain unconvinced. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis -- it might be helpful to the rest of us if, when you make a statement such as "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", where you are stating what policy indicates, as distinct from your personal point of view. As a sysop, this become especially important IMHO, because readers might be confused and think that you are citing policy when that is not the case. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Effort on this article would be much better spent on registry cleaner and explaining the purpose of this task, in an encyclopedic manner. We're supposed to be here for explanations, not product lists. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 24 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill (talk • contribs) 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think most of the delete votes are based on Ihcoyc's reasonings, which aren't very clear for reasonings to delete. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with severe cleanup. IMHO, unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced Vista Optimizer, it passes threshold of WP:N. While Guardian ref is very questionable for the purposes of WP:N (come on, it is answer to question from reader), and alleged ref to WashingtonPost is actually a ref to PCWorld, but reviews by PC World, CNet and PC Advisor IMHO can satisfy WP:N, though very severe cleanup to satisfy WP:NOTADVERTISING will certainly be necessary. Ipsign (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' I'm not going to say this is the best article ever written - but I have done quite a bit of investigation on the topic as the article creator is one of my mentees. Quite simply, I think there is clearly enough to meet our notability guidelines. I think Ihcoyc has it backwards - notability is not something that can be lost but we don't have to prove that something will be used and popular in coming years. Indeed if it's notable now, in 10 years it will still be notable as something that was notable 10 years ago (if that makes sense). A program that is the most popular of it's kind (as mentioned above), reviewed multiple times in reliable sources is notable. 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 clearly is. WormTT · (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clearly notable and encyclopedic article about a major software suite. If ASC really is "One of innumerable very minor system utilities" why is ASC the only named optimizer that the PC mag review of AVO makes a comparison to? If the nom can name even three vista compatible optimizer suites with greater coverage I'll eat my hat. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is very far from "a major software suite". It doesn't do anything of primary usefulness. You might buy a PC to run Office or Corel Draw, but would you buy a PC just to run this program? It's just one of those annoying little extras that Windows collects to keep it running. There's a toilet brush in my bathroom, but I did not build a bathroom just as a place to keep toilet brushes. Registry cleaners are like WP Admins - they're useful, indeed necessary, to keep things running smoothly, but it's a mistake to see the function of WP primarily to be a place to exercise adminship. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 24 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.