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 The lack of reliable sources adds strength of argument to the consensus below. Xoloz 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RegCure[edit]

Non-notable; only references a self-published source. [Edited] Delete Alksub 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Registry cleaner - *~~Nothing there to establish the program's notability.)~~ There's already an article on Registry Cleaners and this one contains no additional information. Also, very little to establish notability. Gatoclass 05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Jakew 10:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it's somewhat redudant for me to be sayin' it. Bahustard 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "rogue malware" claims don't appear to be related to the product itself, but rather to bogus downloads of hacked demo versions offered on all sorts of dubious sites. Keep this in mind when making potentially libellous statements about the company. Thomjakobsen 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly have not put in the time and do not have the same credentials as most of those that have responded here but I do find it of interest that one anonymous user (Bahustard) can create AfD’s on all articles associated with one company based on dubious and defamatory allegations. Can anyone create an AfD and generate this kind of controversy? If you were to look at other registry cleaner articles you would likely find that this RegCure article is more neutral and is more notable than others that are not tagged in any way. I have contacted the company to see what their response is to these claims and allegations. Perhaps a response on the Discussion page would be of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.119.134 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on general principle. When a "new" user with no past edit history comes out of the woodwork to plaster Wikipedia with deletion requests for the products of a single company, one must wonder how he came up to speed on Wikipedia policies so quickly (that is to say, has he made past edits under another id) , and what his motives are. It's absurd that wiki policy even allows such a thing. --CliffC 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previous comments. I don't trust that the nominations are being made in good faith, and the articles have been the subject of unsupported slurs, one of which I reverted (see diff) only after the "delete" votes above. There may be grounds for deletion, but this discussion has been unfairly slanted. Thomjakobsen 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get distracted by side issues. The nub of the issue here is that there is not a scintilla of evidence presented on the page in question to demonstrate the program's notability, and without that it doesn't belong on Wiki. Gatoclass 00:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the deletion proposal is agressively harsh but nonetheless, notability of this utility has not been proven. --Gavin Collins 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are independent reviews as sited on the article. Also, after corresponding to the company about allegations, a response was returned and has been added to the Discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.119.134 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's now got a reference to a recommendation by the Financial Times, which is impressive for a registry cleaner. Add that to the Softpedia review, and I think there's a marginal case to be made for notability. Thomjakobsen 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)Hmm, in that case maybe I'll cancel my vote for delete. With only one decent reference, I still can't bring myself to vote "Keep", but there's at least some evidence now that this program isn't just some random piece of crap. Gatoclass 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)) On second thoughts, I'm still not persuaded there is enough to establish notability. I don't think Wiki should be recording the existence of every useful computer program in existence, the article contains no information that cannot already be found at Registry cleaner, so at best I think it would earn a redirect, and I'm changing my vote to reflect that. Gatoclass 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Registry cleaner. I have supported keeping three other ParetoLogic articles despite their having started as marketing puffs, but this one really has nothing to add. However, I am concerned about the nominator's apparent animus against this software company, and some incautious statements. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic Privacy Controls, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XOFTspy Portable Anti-Spyware, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XoftSpySE.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:09, 14 September 2007 (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.