Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CleanMyMac (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CleanMyMac

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. All sourcing is routine blog site reviews for affiliate pay or routine release announcements. Article and sources have no depth in coverage of the subject itself and just feels like a sly advert. This is no more notable than tens of thousands of other utility software like this that have similar blog site reviews. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it looks as if this went through AfD before and was kept, but was later A7'd multiple times and salted? Not sure what happened between 2014 and this iteration that just came out of draftspace. Maybe two different pieces of software with the same name?Sulfurboy (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I decline to lend weight to the prior AfD, which misapplied GNG/NCORP; participants at it repeatedly relied on sources that plainly were unreliable, non-independent (advertising, promotional, sponsored, affiliate, or primary), or trivial to confer notability. From the sources in the article: Sources 1 and 5 are the same website; source 2 is from a "content partner" and therefore non-independent (not editorially controlled); source 3 is an affiliate and therefore non-independent ("When you purchase something after clicking links in our articles, we may earn a small commission"); source 4 is routine coverage, barely six sentences long, and not notability-conferring; source 5 is the same as source 1; source 6 is non-independent (see Affiliate Disclosure at the bottom); source 8 seems primary and even if it's not it's trivial. We're left with sources 1 and 7. I would argue that source 1 is not significant coverage per #1 of WP:PRODUCTREV, and even if it is, two sources does not notability make. In any event, the notability standards have not been met. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (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.