Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auslogics BoostSpeed

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics BoostSpeed

This article is on a topic that may be non-notable. The article may exist primarily to advertise a particular product. The article has no sources other than the commercial website of the product being described. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw what you mean. I removed the advertising (the price and the fact it was shareware and that it had a trial) and replaced it with review information. If that is still too much advertising, I'll just do it the way the page for Auslogics Disk Defrag was created, by just saying what it does, if necessary. --Jesant13 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add references and citations showing why this company is notable. Search "wp: notability" and "wp: references" in the search box for more information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose the Auslogics Disk Defrag article should be considered for deletion as well then, because THAT is what I based it on format-wise. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to submit that article for deletion. I haven't looked at it so I don't know if it's any good. But this article being discussed here needs to have citations to reputable references added to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, needs to be improved, and added proper references. SF007 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody help me improve the page then? I'm not sure what to add, and I don't want to make the article worse by adding advertising. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a WP:SOAP vio with no real potential for notability. Big reference problems verge (at least) on WP:PSTS violation; one of the three references is nothing more than a download link (possibly in violation of WP:EL, and another is the software's official page. Perhaps if this software is ever involved with a significant event of some sort, it will be notable, but lacking that, no. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non notable with only ~300k downloads. Maybe it could have a reference on another page, but it does not deserve its own.Mozzie (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, look. I created the article because I use the program and noticed it didn't have an article on Wikipedia. Personally, I believe someone should help me improve the article, it has potential. I can see your reasons for deletion, but I think it would be best if this article were improved with more information and third-party sources instead of just deleting it without giving it a chance. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOHARM are not valid reasons for keeping it. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No real third party coverage.Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their product page list a couple of mentions in the specialized press, but those magazines seem really obscure to me. Pcap ping 10:03, 26 November 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.