Deletion of Advanced Vista Optimizer

Comment: Let's analyze sources which establish . As of now, there are 5 references in the article. 1st is , clearly doesn't count for  purposes. Second is PCMag, recognized . The rest (software.informer, registercleanerstested, and ciol), are merely affiliate sites, and IMHO clearly don't qualify as . So, we have only one  to justify notability, and it clearly falls short of ''multiple sources'' requirement of . Verdict: delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SPS||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: The article was created by one of my mentees, and appears to be well enough sourced to meet our |notability guidelines. I should also point out that  is firstly an essay (as opposed to  and ) and secondly just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it CANNOT be notable - which this product appears to be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MILL||WP:NOT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Per .  is not a policy, and I do not see any other good reason that this article should be deleted. I could be convinced that creation of and a merge with the publisher's page could be worthwhile per , but we do not need an AfD for that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MILL||WP:PRODUCT)

Comment: Please see my newer comments in rticles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: Because |notability is forever, sources need to establish, not merely that a product exists, but that it has abiding |historical, technical, or cultural significance of the sort that will be remembered over generations and centuries.  Software tied to the inner workings of a specific operating system will be hard pressed to meet such a test.  Routine reviews establishing that this product is for sale and can be made to work do not establish that kind of significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:ORGIN)