242:
create an AfD and generate this kind of controversy? If you were to look at other registry cleaner articles you would likely find that this RegCure article is more neutral and is more notable than others that are not tagged in any way. I have contacted the company to see what their response is to these claims and allegations. Perhaps a response on the
Discussion page would be of interest.
241:
I certainly have not put in the time and do not have the same credentials as most of those that have responded here but I do find it of interest that one anonymous user (Bahustard) can create AfD’s on all articles associated with one company based on dubious and defamatory allegations. Can anyone
270:
for the products of a single company, one must wonder how he came up to speed on
Knowledge policies so quickly (that is to say, has he made past edits under another id) , and what his motives are. It's absurd that wiki policy even allows such a thing.
379:
On second thoughts, I'm still not persuaded there is enough to establish notability. I don't think Wiki should be recording the existence of every useful computer program in existence, the article contains no information that cannot already be found at
207:
The "rogue malware" claims don't appear to be related to the product itself, but rather to bogus downloads of hacked demo versions offered on all sorts of dubious sites. Keep this in mind when making potentially libellous statements about the company.
412:
articles despite their having started as marketing puffs, but this one really has nothing to add. However, I am concerned about the nominator's apparent animus against this software company, and some incautious statements. (See also:
300:
Let's not get distracted by side issues. The nub of the issue here is that there is not a scintilla of evidence presented on the page in question to demonstrate the program's notability, and without that it doesn't belong on Wiki.
372:
Hmm, in that case maybe I'll cancel my vote for delete. With only one decent reference, I still can't bring myself to vote "Keep", but there's at least some evidence now that this program isn't just some random piece of crap.
422:
418:
329:- There are independent reviews as sited on the article. Also, after corresponding to the company about allegations, a response was returned and has been added to the Discussion page.
283:
As per previous comments. I don't trust that the nominations are being made in good faith, and the articles have been the subject of unsupported slurs, one of which I reverted (see
110:
222:
414:
426:
357:, which is impressive for a registry cleaner. Add that to the Softpedia review, and I think there's a marginal case to be made for notability.
336:
249:
17:
287:) only after the "delete" votes above. There may be grounds for deletion, but this discussion has been unfairly slanted.
317:
I think the deletion proposal is agressively harsh but nonetheless, notability of this utility has not been proven. --
83:
78:
87:
454:
36:
453:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
70:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
340:
253:
332:
245:
196:
439:
388:
361:
344:
321:
305:
291:
275:
266:- on general principle. When a "new" user with no past edit history comes out of the woodwork to
257:
232:
212:
199:
187:
175:
149:
124:
74:
52:
409:
318:
358:
288:
209:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
66:
58:
435:
405:
381:
171:
and this one contains no additional information. Also, very little to establish notability.
168:
160:
354:
384:, so at best I think it would earn a redirect, and I'm changing my vote to reflect that.
385:
374:
302:
267:
172:
138:
104:
431:
272:
229:
142:
134:
121:
48:
The lack of reliable sources adds strength of argument to the consensus below.
184:
146:
49:
447:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
423:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/XOFTspy
Portable Anti-Spyware
419:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic
Privacy Controls
195:- Though it's somewhat redudant for me to be sayin' it.
284:
117:
Non-notable; only references a self-published source.
100:
96:
92:
165:
Nothing there to establish the program's notability.)
353:
It's now got a reference to a recommendation by the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
457:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
415:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic
427:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/XoftSpySE
268:plaster Knowledge with deletion requests
221:: This debate has been included in the
408:. I have supported keeping three other
7:
223:list of Software-related deletions
24:
377:04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC))
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
440:04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
389:02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
362:00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
345:19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
322:09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
306:00:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
292:18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
276:18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
258:17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
233:00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
167:There's already an article on
53:16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
213:22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
200:19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
188:10:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
176:05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
150:05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
125:02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
474:
450:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
135:significant coverage
143:independent sources
378:
166:
157:Delete or Redirect
371:
347:
335:comment added by
260:
248:comment added by
235:
226:
169:Registry Cleaners
164:
465:
452:
438:
406:Registry cleaner
382:Registry cleaner
330:
243:
227:
217:
161:Registry cleaner
108:
90:
34:
473:
472:
468:
467:
466:
464:
463:
462:
461:
455:deletion review
448:
430:
355:Financial Times
230:John Vandenberg
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
471:
469:
460:
459:
443:
442:
394:
393:
392:
391:
365:
364:
348:
324:
311:
310:
309:
308:
295:
294:
278:
261:
236:
215:
202:
190:
178:
153:
152:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
470:
458:
456:
451:
445:
444:
441:
437:
433:
428:
424:
420:
416:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
395:
390:
387:
383:
376:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
360:
356:
352:
349:
346:
342:
338:
337:154.5.119.134
334:
328:
325:
323:
320:
319:Gavin Collins
316:
313:
312:
307:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
290:
286:
282:
279:
277:
274:
269:
265:
262:
259:
255:
251:
250:154.5.119.134
247:
240:
237:
234:
231:
224:
220:
216:
214:
211:
206:
203:
201:
198:
194:
191:
189:
186:
182:
179:
177:
174:
170:
162:
158:
155:
154:
151:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
449:
446:
401:
397:
359:Thomjakobsen
350:
326:
314:
289:Thomjakobsen
280:
263:
238:
218:
210:Thomjakobsen
204:
192:
180:
156:
130:
118:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
410:ParetoLogic
331:—Preceding
244:—Preceding
183:per Corpx.
145:are found
386:Gatoclass
375:Gatoclass
303:Gatoclass
197:Bahustard
173:Gatoclass
402:redirect
333:unsigned
246:unsigned
139:reliable
111:View log
351:Comment
327:Comment
239:Comment
205:Comment
133:unless
84:protect
79:history
67:RegCure
59:RegCure
436:Alarob
434:alias
432:Rob C.
429:.) --
398:Delete
315:Delete
273:CliffC
193:Delete
181:Delete
131:Delete
122:Alksub
119:Delete
88:delete
46:Delete
185:Jakew
147:Corpx
137:from
105:views
97:watch
93:links
50:Xoloz
16:<
400:and
341:talk
285:diff
281:Keep
264:Keep
254:talk
219:Note
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
404:to
228:--
225:.
163:- *
159:to
109:– (
425:,
421:,
417:,
343:)
271:--
256:)
141:,
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
370:)
339:(
252:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.