Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare (2nd 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 delete. Sandstein 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced SystemCare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article has been created many times in the past by various accounts that ended up being blocked for advertising. I am aware that it was closed as keep on one occasion but then the article apparently became a promotion vehicle and was then deleted due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IObit. I expect that the same thing will happen with this iteration. ... discospinster _talk 17:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am seeing reviews from websites that I would consider WP:RS like PC Mag and TechRadar. Just because this incarnation of the article is poorly written doesn't mean it is inherently not notable. shoy (reactions) 17:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both because the article is promotional (would qualify for CSD G11 in my opinion) and because there is no substantial coverage. A couple of reviews are not enough. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IObit is an Indian outfit, so it has a very large user base. In the UK they pushed it heavily about 5-8 years ago, and it is well known around the world. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Clean the article up and remove the promotion. scope_creep^Talk 09:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP. The sources cited in the article is a Wikipedia mirror site and a Google Play product listing. And that is all, I'm afraid. Even if all the (blatant) promotional slant of the text is righted up through deletion, we still have no sources. Which is why, in suggestions to Keep, we see only unsupported claims to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poorly written, very promotional and fails GNG. A solid delete vote.  ⚜ LithOldor ⚜  ^(T) 14:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks significant press coverage from reliable sources. Sonstephen0 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A quick search on Google Books returns only 3 passing mentions of the product, and the results on Google News are just regular announcements of new versions and reviews which are nothing special. Clear failure of WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is written like a promotion for the product, and the only sources are software download websites, not actual reliable sources. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 22:02, 23 April 2019 (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.