Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RegistryBooster

: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. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

=[[RegistryBooster]]=

:{{la|RegistryBooster}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|RegistryBooster}})

prodded. suspected meatpuppet declined. advert, fails WP:PRODUCT Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete The only "sources" are really advertisements. Stedrick (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: [http://www.pcmech.com/about/ PCMech] could possibly be reliable considering PC World, PC Magazine, and the Wall Street Journal consider it so. There is no other good sources that I can find. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per PCWorld, PC Advisor, Softpedia and tucows reviews [http://www.uniblue.com/software/registrybooster/reviews/ linked to by vendor]. Sad but true: the advertising budget of the vendor by far overwhelms our spam filters, and this [http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-performance/uniblue-registrybooster-2010/b5ce1893-23d4-43c7-ae7b-a1b4678c0b33 known malware] passes WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Comment - If its known malware, why does it not say so in the article? Right now, the discussion is to say that it wants you to get it. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Both the fact that this is a known malware and the article is promotional don't actually make this article viable for deletion. These problems can be solved by editing and protecting it. While I would love to see this deleted, we are supposed to make a policy-based decisions, and this time I see no way to delete it per any policy or guideline. In fact, the claim about the malware has wide coverage on forums and QA sites, but the sources we are supposed to use mostly rebut these claims. Marketing budget is a great tool for gaming the system without risk of being caught... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Per rationale above by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:Product and only (questionably) WP:Reliable source does not assert notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2012 (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.