- 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Registry Dr.
- Registry Dr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod despite being absolutely clear-cut and I'm assuming extreme good faith for not tagging it as a copyright violation, so doing this the hard way... My prod rationale is "Unsouced and unsourceable - the three "sources" are all from highly dubious websites, and as far as I can see no reliable source of any kind has ever even mentioned this product in passing. Also appears to be at best an ultra-close paraphrase and at worst an outright copyvio from this site. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure software." and nothing has changed my opinion - the person removing the prod claims that this obvious advert (the "solution" to every problem on the site appears to be to give them some money) being hosted on "a big site with tons of articles in it" makes it a reliable source. This is an utterly trivial piece of ephemeral software which will never meet even the broadest interpretation of the WP:GNG. Mogism ( talk) 23:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: apparently the article serves the purpose of warning against using Registry Doctor, and Wikipedia is wrong venue for such warnings. In fact I'm not sure there are sufficient sources to protect Wikipedia from legal threat that is posed by having article of such tone about a commercial product. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs provided are all how-to articles, and not sufficient to establish notability. A search turns up blogs, download sites, and more removal how-to's, but no significant RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - very questionable notability. The article is pretty much 100% an attack page - all the references are about how to remove it/virus; not really the place for this. -- CyberXRef ☎ 14:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Mogism nominated an article I created for deletion twice before and both times, not a single person other than me voted to keep the artcle to I trust that Mogism knows a lot better than me whether this article is worthy of deletion. I see why the sources aren't reliable. The first source says that Registry Dr. was a hoax whereas the second one says it had a good intention, which are conflicting pieces of information about whether the program was made in a bad way on purpose or not so at least one of those sources must have wrong information so the article might be worthy of deletion. I don't know if I assumed correctly but I assumed that I can contest a PROD when I'm not extremely sure an article proposed for deletion is worthy of deletion and not just when I actively believe it's not worthy of deletion. Blackbombchu ( talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, anyone can contest a prod for any reason. It is good practice to explain your reasons for removing the prod on the talk page of the article. Dialectric ( talk) 11:59, 10 May 2014 (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.
- 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Registry Dr.
- Registry Dr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod despite being absolutely clear-cut and I'm assuming extreme good faith for not tagging it as a copyright violation, so doing this the hard way... My prod rationale is "Unsouced and unsourceable - the three "sources" are all from highly dubious websites, and as far as I can see no reliable source of any kind has ever even mentioned this product in passing. Also appears to be at best an ultra-close paraphrase and at worst an outright copyvio from this site. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure software." and nothing has changed my opinion - the person removing the prod claims that this obvious advert (the "solution" to every problem on the site appears to be to give them some money) being hosted on "a big site with tons of articles in it" makes it a reliable source. This is an utterly trivial piece of ephemeral software which will never meet even the broadest interpretation of the WP:GNG. Mogism ( talk) 23:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: apparently the article serves the purpose of warning against using Registry Doctor, and Wikipedia is wrong venue for such warnings. In fact I'm not sure there are sufficient sources to protect Wikipedia from legal threat that is posed by having article of such tone about a commercial product. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk• track) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 04:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs provided are all how-to articles, and not sufficient to establish notability. A search turns up blogs, download sites, and more removal how-to's, but no significant RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - very questionable notability. The article is pretty much 100% an attack page - all the references are about how to remove it/virus; not really the place for this. -- CyberXRef ☎ 14:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Mogism nominated an article I created for deletion twice before and both times, not a single person other than me voted to keep the artcle to I trust that Mogism knows a lot better than me whether this article is worthy of deletion. I see why the sources aren't reliable. The first source says that Registry Dr. was a hoax whereas the second one says it had a good intention, which are conflicting pieces of information about whether the program was made in a bad way on purpose or not so at least one of those sources must have wrong information so the article might be worthy of deletion. I don't know if I assumed correctly but I assumed that I can contest a PROD when I'm not extremely sure an article proposed for deletion is worthy of deletion and not just when I actively believe it's not worthy of deletion. Blackbombchu ( talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, anyone can contest a prod for any reason. It is good practice to explain your reasons for removing the prod on the talk page of the article. Dialectric ( talk) 11:59, 10 May 2014 (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.