Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TuneUp Utilities


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

TuneUp Utilities

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fleet Command (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was created in November 2009 and has been unsourced since. Just recently (see the talk page) has there been sources included in footnotes. However it's only the software's website about us and a few reviews. I don't feel this program is notable for Wikipedia. The article offers nothing different from the product's website (namely the "features" page). Even their website lists most of the reviews that's now in the article. It's also written like an advertisement and one editor refused to accept that another editor (and also an administrator) tried to fix the problem, even reverting his edit as "vandalism". — Mike  Allen   06:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Egads. Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 07:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Per nominator. Fleet Command (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recently, footnotes are added to the article. Perhaps nominator does not know. According to Notability, this article is clearly notable. Article has reliable secondary sources. It is also not written like an advertisement. It's just detailed and are not advertisement. Anyway, if it is too detailed, its details can be reduced. 80.191.138.129 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF, stick to discussing the content of the article, and do not make personal attacks against the nominator. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he must be colleague of mine who has gone sentimental. I think you can safely delete his comments per Civility. Do you mind if I? (I did so.) Fleet Command (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How did your colleague suddenly know about this deletion discussion? — Mike  Allen   22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha? You think Wikipedia is something top secret that no one knows about it? Perhaps he saw your comments, didn't approve of it and joined in to help; full of sentiments, like all newcomers. The important thing is that he has the right to do so. If you don't approve of his comments, I don't see why you are jumping at me who also did not approve of his comments and removed them. Fleet Command (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh god.. I am not "jumping on you". I asked a question. — Mike   Allen   10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has already established its notability via PC Magazine (2010), Gralla, Preston (2009), Wilson, Jeffrey L (2009), MarjorGeeks (2004) and Rosenblatt, Seth (2009). The nominator should definitely read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Just Not Notable and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Not Encyclopedic. If there is advertisement in the article, we can re-write that section from a WP:NPOV language; but deletion is out of question. Fleet Command (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read a lot of those essays. And?  If you are having to use primary sources (particularly from the site's about us page) then that is an indicator the program is not notable.  Wikipedia is supposed to offer more than the subject's website.  People just add any and everything to Wikipedia, and this is why the site is not taken seriously. — Mike   Allen   22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? All those sources that I introduced above are primary? Nonsense! There is no primary sources in the article besides the two for the version number and first release date; those two are perfectly allowed per WP:PRIMARY. I already said that twice in the talk page and even quoted from WP:PRIMARY but you simply refuse to acknowledge and choose to ignore them. But I don't think that the closing administrator will ignore them. Furthermore, this is the third time that you try to make it look like as if the article is completely made up of primary sources. This straw man discussion is a violation of Civility. Fleet Command (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't see how all the reviews listed (if they were listed in the article) would make it notable? I'm tired of you wikilawyering me. I did not make this AFD in bad faith, I did not raise a concern on the talk page in bad faith, and I did not edit war with you.  I have raised a valid concern about this article, so please quit making it seem like I'm attacking you. — Mike   Allen   10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you "don't see how all the reviews listed" would make it notable, read WP:GNG. As for you being on the attack: You called me "paranoid", you accused me of not assuming good faith, you called my act of defending the article Wiki-lawyering, you violated WP:BRD, you nitpick at my every move, you try to make everyone believe that primary sources are ENTIRELY not allowed and you employ straw man discussions! Yet you still have failed to produce a valid discussion as to what constitutes a difference between a detailed article and an advertisement. You have started a section called "Prose and advertisement" and you talk about everything in it except the prose and the advertisement. You do all of these and "feel" this article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Are you not on the attack? Fleet Command (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After due consideration, I think the answer is "No, you are NOT on the attack". But I'm sure I cannot shake hand with you say "It was a pleasure to meet you sir; your attitude towards disagreements and oppositions is very commendable. Please allow me to call you 'friend'." Regrettably, that's the aim of Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you're the one that suggested I go ahead and take it to AFD if I "didn't think it was notable". Also, the only edit I reverted of yours (with an edit summary) was your reversion (as "vandalism") of User: Ckatz.   Please quit hounding everybody on what they did and didn't do.  It's getting old now.  — Mike   Allen   22:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember having objected your act of AFDing the article. And yes, I did revert Ckatz as vandalism because I sincerely think it was vandalism. I neither see what's wrong with my doing that and I don't know why would you repeat it here except for giving me a bad face. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you enjoy quoting policies, let me introduce you to the WP:Vandalism policy. Under What is not vandalism: "Some material—sometimes even factually correct material—does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism."  Keep that in mind the next time you revert an edit as "vandalism". Thank you.  — Mike   Allen   07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete article appears to be not much more than a features list (WP:IINFO), and lacks more than the occasional minor mention on technical websites, that one would expect of any minor software, no matter how obscure (no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection But dear sir, the article cites PC Magazine, PC World (magazine) and PC Advisor in addition to Seth Rosenblatt, the editor of CNET. Surely, you do agree that they are reliable secondary sources, don't you? Please look at the article more carefully before participating in AFD. As for the feature list however, I'm planning to add history and critical reception based on the aforementioned sources. Fleet Command (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Counter-objection: these websites typically provide such brief reviews for hundreds (thousands?) of pieces of software each year. Whilst such coverage is generally (though often barely) adequate to decide whether to download/buy the software, it generally does not include sufficient depth for an encyclopaedic article. The fact that this article is based upon such material is probably why it is simply an unencycloapedic features list. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's wrong again, sir: The article reviews are quite long and comprehensive. Their analysis are also quite in-depth. Why don't you see for yourself? As you can see, I've added a critical reception today. Given enough time, I can add more encyclopedic data. As for the recurrence, Notability is not temporary: One single secondary review in a reliable source is enough to make an article notable for centuries to come. Recurrent reviews are not necessary. Fleet Command (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, notability is not given at all. "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." — Mike   Allen   22:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the forth time that you are repeating this assertion (which is clearly wrong) without telling exactly what and how. Mike Allen, I warn you that you are (either unintentionally or deliberately) committing a serious misconduct of misrepresenting Wikipedia Notability policies and hence you are in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Either tell us exactly which part of WP:GNG is not met, or I will report your conducts to Administrative Noticeboard. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm "wrong", then so are four other editors here. I wish you would quit accusing me of violating all of these essays, guidelines and policy in this AFD. Every comment you have towards me is claiming I am wrong, violated Wikipedia policy or attacking you.  Take it to the appropriate noticeboard. — Mike   Allen   07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare comparing other editors with yourself. Apart from being very polite, they neither misrepresented anything nor employed vilifying tactics. You are still misrepresenting: Civility is not an essay, guideline or policy; it is one of the five pillars and may not be overruled, not even by consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that a piece of software gets reviewed in a magazine whose main activity is reviewing software does not make it notable. A review may establish that the software is good, bad or indifferent. However, what we need to know is: is it notable. The answer, I think, is no.-- K orr u ski Talk 15:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection With all due respect sir, this type of opinion of your does not really count in Wikipedia: You see, sir, according to Notability as long the article receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is defined as "notable" and hence merits presence in Wikipedia. This software, as I mentioned above, has received enough coverage in reliable sources. Hence, although I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. Wikipedia also does not. Fleet Command (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, thank you for your polite disagreement! However, I don't think it is as simple as you make out. For example, take a read of WP:IMPACT. Yes, it is just an essay - but it does suggest that at least some of Wikipedia agrees with my opinion that notability means more than simply finding independent sources that talk about your subject - it means finding sources that demonstrate that your subject has impact. As it puts it, 'Think beyond the mere search for those multiple independent reliable sources.'-- K orr u ski Talk 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I do not simply disagree with an essay on the pretext that "it is just an essay". However, you should take note that WP:IMPACT does not sanction the extermination of an article on the basis that it does not have impact! In fact, if it did, we had to take out most of the Wikipedia articles on software. Furthermore, what is the measuring instruments for metering the impact of this article? You feelings? Seriously, sir, you would like to disregard Wikipedia policy and take out the time and effort spent on this legitimate article on the pretext that you feel it does not have impact? Consider it this way: Do you like to see your own contributions taken out on the basis that someone somewhere has a feeling they do not have impact? Last but not least, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and derives its huge impact on public from the collaborative impact of small articles together as a whole, not from the average of each article's impact. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with taking out most of the Wikipedia articles on software. Very little software is truly notable. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Yes, in this case, the measure is my 'feelings' as you disparagingly put it, or my 'considered opinion' as I would prefer it. It is on the basis of considered opinions that consensus is formed and, ultimately, it is upon consensus and not upon a rigid adherence to the letter of the rules that Wikipedia runs, whatever you may believe. Also - while your civility is greatly appreciated, calling people 'Sir' online is not only a little pompous, but it is fairly likely to be inaccurate.-- K orr u ski Talk 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assure you, Korruski, I don't mean to be disparaging or pompous at all. In any case, unlike you, I and WP:GNG are not okay with taking out most of the Wikipedia articles on software. Please do take into consideration that WP:GNG is a guideline and hence a codified consensus; going against it is like going against a consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confer 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your software.  Give it a rest. Objection overruled, your honor!  (preemptively)  Snotty Wong   confer 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:IINFO is now resolved. Thanks to JMetzler. Fleet Command (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been improved a lot since it was flagged for deletion. It is no longer written like an advertisement and describes the main functionality of the software in a neutral fashion. It is no longer unsourced or uncited as various reputable secondary sources have been added. And while it may be argued that getting reviewed by major computer magazines whose main activity is reviewing software does not make a software notable per se, receiving the editors' choice award of such magazines (see Wilson, Jeffrey L (2009) as an example) means that the software is among the best in its category, which certainly makes it notable. JMetzler (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. Dear JMetzler, please allow me to commend you on your recent work on the article. Your contributions are highly appreciated. You have my gratitude. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - PCMag and PCWorld represent reliable soruces that have provided indpendent reviews of the software which establishes its notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Products become notable on the basis of substantial reviews in RSs, and this product has them. Major computer magazines do not review everything released, so  getting a review is sufficient sourcing--as with all other review sourcing for the purposes of notability.   DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nom seems to simply say the article is in poor shape, not that its not a notable topic. which it appears to be.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  05:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless anyone can convince me that the Bahasa Indonesian Wikipedia, the Chinese-language Wikipedia,the German-language Wikipedia, the Italian-language Wikipedia, the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, the Russian-language Wikipedia, the Slovak-language Wikipedia and the Spanish-language Wikipedia can each have a cognate article but the the English-language Wikipedia should not... -- Jandalhandler (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And all have the same problem as this article. Your point?   TuneUp Corporation should just link this article from their "feature" page; it would save them from writing out and selling all the features since this article already does that for them. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   05:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Each separate article appears to have its own structure, with different advantages and different problems. The English and German versions have the merit of providing a product/version history over and above listing features. Hints of negativity included -- you might not find such in a commercial marketing summary. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Article has been improved since AfD nomination, is no longer promotional in tone, references are reliable and the references / awards demonstrate notability. Jimmy Pitt   talk  14:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Spending a moment to clicking on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, I see many major news sources review this.  D r e a m Focus  16:23, 7 December 2010 (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.