- 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ATF-Cleaner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article makes no assertion of notability. -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We probably do need an article on Atribune, but not on individual programs such as this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article does not cite any other sources. Carlos Johnson (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It cites two sources currently, and it is enough for what is currently needed (although that may change as more is added into the article/stub). Do we really need redundant sources for a article to not be deleted? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep :: I have just revitalized this piece of work and I don't believe it deserves to go down the drain. Though Atribune might need an article, using the same concept on others would be disastrous.
Using that concept of thinking, would be to say Bill Gates only needs an article and Windows can be shot down the drain. I know Windows should have an article due to the WikiCommunity and the notability is above reason but, no matter how small an article may be it should still give information.
I just gave an extra reference yesterday, and I highly bet I could find more. I don't want to see this article deleted.
EDIT :: I would feel better about this if we got to create an article named Atribune, and we merged all his tools into it.
--Techpro5238 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep or Merge ::: Atribune probably needs a article, and it may be merged into it, but to say that a software information page should be deleted simply because it is a software page and "we don't needs articles on individual programs" is flawed logic, as stated by the windows example above. If we were following the "we don't need individual programs" logic, lots of articles would be nominated and deleted, such as Firefox (browser/program, which would be merged into Mozilla inc.). The article does not cite any sources, but it's only so big at the current stage (which is to say that it's really really small). I doubt there aren't any sources, but if you are so annoyed by it, why not add them in/work on the article (more like stub), instead of nominating for deletion? All articles have to start from somewhere. note: creator of page (more like stub, just added it in for others to work on) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that we don't need pages for software - we do... but we only need pages for notable software, which this product doesn't appear to be. -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This software is indeed notable. ATF-Cleaner has been used, and is still in use as a major cleanup tool in the malware removal process. When there is malware in the temporary directories of a computer, ATF-Cleaner fixes it up. Many people are inquisitive nowadays and they want to find out about the tools analysts use. Without this article, your denying them information they would want. --Techpro5238 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I definitely read about ATF-Cleaner from some notable site since otherwise I wouldn't have gotten it as I am able to delete such things without it (although ATF-Cleaner saves me time cause I'm lazy) It is mentioned often (enough anyway since different problems require different software) on Afterdawn forums and other notable tech forums when people have malware/other issues as a tool to use. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you heard about it on a notable site, feel free to add a reference, although bear in mind that citing a forum is very rarely an example of a reliable source.-- JediLofty UserTalk 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll add in some sources too. Really, the sections about the cleaner are included in the screenshot and IMHO that should be enough for the user. If we really do need more references, though there is nothing to reference, I will find more.--Techpro5238 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll be re-adding sources to compensate the ones you removed Jedilofty under {{cite web}} format ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kinda hard to filter out the download sites, but, would this count (maybe only include the panel part? I don't know....seems notable if it was in a panel) [1] I'll try to find others, but really, nothing else needs to be cited currently so it'll just be cites purely for the reason of cites if that makes sense. Also techpro says he/she'll work on the article later ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there any reliable sources for this product? The only links I've seen so far that mention it are either blogs or download sites. -- JediLofty UserTalk 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The one I added to the article was a review and a download site, but it had a somewhat original review and was contributive(sp/word?) to the article. But in many ways, there wouldn't be lots of sites other than download sites to have it, as well, it is a software. I mean, deluge has only 2 sources, both official, and its a software so. As for being on download sites, some of the larger, more notable ones would only put on useful software, and for being actually used, you could browse through all of the tech support forums for viruses/stuff (ex google ATF Cleaner, PC mag), but I really doubt that's reliable/we are supposed to cite lots of small pages. I see it'll be really hard to prove notability of this article actually, so I don't care if it's deleted or not. It's on Cnet, Afterdawn, MG, lots of sites, but I doubt any of those follow "reliable".....is there a article on the general software type? Might merge there.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll add in some sources too. Really, the sections about the cleaner are included in the screenshot and IMHO that should be enough for the user. If we really do need more references, though there is nothing to reference, I will find more.--Techpro5238 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you heard about it on a notable site, feel free to add a reference, although bear in mind that citing a forum is very rarely an example of a reliable source.-- JediLofty UserTalk 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I definitely read about ATF-Cleaner from some notable site since otherwise I wouldn't have gotten it as I am able to delete such things without it (although ATF-Cleaner saves me time cause I'm lazy) It is mentioned often (enough anyway since different problems require different software) on Afterdawn forums and other notable tech forums when people have malware/other issues as a tool to use. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This software is indeed notable. ATF-Cleaner has been used, and is still in use as a major cleanup tool in the malware removal process. When there is malware in the temporary directories of a computer, ATF-Cleaner fixes it up. Many people are inquisitive nowadays and they want to find out about the tools analysts use. Without this article, your denying them information they would want. --Techpro5238 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced user guide based on own research for non-notable software product. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not supported by citations from any reliable independent secondary sources; reads like a "how-to" manual in places (see WP:NOT), an advert in others. B.Wind (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2008 (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.