Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auslogics BoostSpeed (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. Arguments to keep are less grounded in policy: they do not take into account precedent over what counts as a reliable source or explain why this is an exception to precedent. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. causa sui (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics BoostSpeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

non-notable software. no mentions in news, books, scholar to speak of. nothing reliable or independent of topic on straight google either. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment—didn't notice there'd been a previous afd which ended in delete. article seems to have same problems still, based on archived afd discussion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are three reliable sources on the article so the software is obviously notable. Laurent (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ghits are routine product listings and consumer digest reviews. WP is encyclopedia, not a shopper's guide. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are several softwares listed on Wikipedia. This is an important article and just because not a lot of people have gotten around to edit it does not mean it needs to be deleted. Avish2217 (talk) 02:03, 07 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any reliable sources, except pro forma pieces, and press releases. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Download links are not sufficent coverage to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 8 November 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.