Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArgusMonitor

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 no consensus. No comments in three weeks - clearly no consensus to do anything. No prejudice against simply starting another AFd, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArgusMonitor

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

This article is tagged for lacking notability since February 2010. I tried searching Download.com, Softpedia, Softonic, PC World and PC Magazine but only Softpedia had a small review, which is far from enough for notability. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 14:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a review at CNET. And at Software Informer, and...

OK, here is a lists of the first few reviews I found:

CNET, Software Informer, softpedia, Speed Up Computers

If only Download.com, Softpedia, Softonic, PC World and PC Magazine count as references, you should go and delete the article for Windows 8 as well (because at least I could only find a review for it on PC Magazine and PC World). :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.67.213 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. None of the links the you supplied contain an editorial review except Softpedia. (An editorial review is one that is vetted after being written, as required by WP:RS.) CNET link contains no semblances of review whatsoever, only the publisher's description. Soft Informer on the other hand, is a notorious unreliable source. Speedupcomputers.org is WP:SPS. Softpedia review is the only valid one here but one coverage is not "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG.

Last but not least, I never said "only". You are more than welcome to search other reliable sources like computer magazines or books from reliable publishers. But sources like Huffington Post, The Register, etc. are not acceptable.

By the way, please stick to AfD messaging format in this page. This is not a community forum. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:41, 17 August 2013 (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.