Deletion of Advanced SystemCare

Comment: but with severe cleanup. IMHO, unlike rticles for deletion/Advanced Vista Optimizer, it passes threshold of . While Guardian ref is very questionable for the purposes of  (come on, it is answer to question from reader), and alleged ref to WashingtonPost is actually a ref to PCWorld, but reviews by PC World, CNet and PC Advisor IMHO can satisfy , though ''very severe'' cleanup to satisfy OTADVERTISING will certainly be necessary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:N||WP:N||WP:N||WP:NOTADVERTISING)

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: I'm not going to say this is the best article ever written - but I have done quite a bit of investigation on the topic as the article creator is one of my mentees. Quite simply, I think there is clearly enough to meet our |notability guidelines. I think Ihcoyc has it backwards - notability is not something that can be lost but we don't have to prove that something will be used and popular in coming years. Indeed if it's notable now, in 10 years it will still be notable as something that was notable 10 years ago (if that makes sense). A program that is the most popular of it's kind (as mentioned above), reviewed multiple times in reliable sources is notable. 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 clearly is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MILL||WP:NOT||WP:GNG)

Comment: per Smerdis and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)