Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcohol 120%


 * 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 Keep per nearly unanimous consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol 120%

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Per the relevant notability guideline for products and services sold by companies, products are notable only if they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works or is so popular that the trade name suffers from genericization. Of those two conditions, the second obviously doesn't apply. Regarding the first condition, the Alcohol 120% page does not assert the existence of any independent, non-trivial published works discussing the product. I haven't been able to locate any, and the corporate webpage itself doesn't include any reference to any independent publicity. Previous tags for speedy deletion and prod were removed, but noone has provided any references to any independent publicity. TheronJ 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete And if kept, add (software) to the name. It is annoying to see articles about bands or software which are not about what they appear to be. People seeking to get sloshed will be disappointed to find it contains no ethanol. Edison 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very popular CD recording and emulation software as indicated by over 1,400,000 Google hits. As for WP:SOFTWARE -, , , , , and these are just from the first two Google pages.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I guess the key question is whether at least two of those sources count as "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." If so, then Alcohol 120% is notable under either the current WP:CORP or the proposed WP:SOFTWARE.  If not, then it's not notable under either guideline.  I think download sites like the tucows page you link are pretty clearly trivial and I question whether they're independent, but I'm curious what people think about on-line reviews such as ITP.net  Thoughts?  Thanks, TheronJ 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ,, . This is ridiculous. If you would do some more research you would probably find some offline sources and reviews (such as the Chips.de German magazine review for instance).   Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the possible point of adding the link to allthescripts.com? Are you seriously arguing that that page constitutes a "non-trivial published" reference to Alcohol 120%?  If not, why add it?  I'm open to the question of whether the non-download sites constitute non-trivial published references and interested in hearing some reasoned opinions on the subject.  On the other hand, I note that three of your links come from the same site, toptenreviews.com, and most of the others are one paragraph summaries on shareware download sites.  On the gripping hand, if it's easy to find paper articles discussing Alcohol, go find a couple and add them to the article.  That would far and away be the best result -- it would improve the article and resolve this debate.  Thanks, TheronJ 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even in case one or two of these might be considered trivial or non-notable, I believe the rest are a very solid evidence of passing that criteria. Toptenreviews.com contains subsites relating to different software types, in this case, CD burning and game copying software. I am concerned that although these reviews are enough to establish notability, that shouldn't be used as references since they have a point of view.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral pending further sources. I'm not convinced any of the links given so far constitute non-trivial sources (particularly download sites, as you say), but on the other hand, I am sure they must be out there for such a popular product. CiaranG 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A well-known piece of software in many circles; should be somewhat easy to verify notability, as for a time it was one of the only (if not the only) pieces of software capable of 1:1 bit copying of some types of CDs. -- Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a pretty famous piece of software. Shrumster 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is definitely notable software. I will look for websites that show that it is notable. If there is a problem with its content then lets fix it. --BenWhitey 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the reference to Alcohol 120 winning the Epsilon Award 2006 by the European Shareware Conference, which seems to be somewhat notable. It is sponsored by notable companies/organizations including: Avangate, Digital River, Infacta, Microsoft, Plimus, Shareware Promotions, Software Marketing Resource, and Tucows. --BenWhitey 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, a number of refrences on Google News Archive should meet RS (many not in English). --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable. adavidw 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As it is very notable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone, obviously. JuJube 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Eh, wha, huh? I've seen several non-trivial mentions of Alcohol 52% and Alcohol 120% in print and online. Definitely notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is indeed notable. Rockhound 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The criteria are being taken too seriously here. As many others have noted, Alcohol 120% is very popular and references are easy to come accross even outside of computer geek circles. An individual unfamiliar with the product should be able to find information about it on Wikipedia, which, let's remember, is not paper. Furthermore, though the article does need some expansion and clean-up, its exstistence does not detract from Wikipedia's image or authority. Any reasonable observer can see the merit of the article. V-pizz 21:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.