Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CleanMyMac

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CleanMyMac[edit]

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

Advertising. Not a word about the problems caused by (an earlier version of) this program. The Banner talk 17:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable & promo software with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula - Since I was only able to find downloads, I'm very surprised at the amount of sources found!, Well there is evidence of notability, But as noted above it's somewhat promo which can be fixed anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haseo9999 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reviews and other coverage in well-known publications.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Article needs improvement, but it's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Source examples: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Half the content needs to be deleted and the rest rewritten, all the bullets are ridiculous but there are enough sources to justify a keep. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's complaint of "advertising" has a legitimate basis; the article does not provide good encyclopedic coverage of the topic. However, AfD guidelines say if it can be fixed through the normal editing process, it isn't a candidate for deletion. The subject easily meets notability requirements based on some of the sources cited above; these include very well known sources, with very detailed articles just on this subject. Agyle (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2014 (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.