Talk:McAfee Institute

Various Issues
There were some huge copy and pasting here, some going back years. I've removed most of the offending content. Then there's the issue of notability. Google Search gives "22,900" hits with most books and News articles referring a church music organisation. The few which mention the article subject are press releases or in the case of the Book, as simply listings of courses or a website address. In my opinion, this article does not meet notability standards and will be incredibly difficult to improve. After huge trimming, most of the sources left are to US government assistance programs, which do not prove notability. UaMaol (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi! I found this article via the random article button, and I agree completely with your assessment. I'm also concerned that this article may contain self-promotional language, or content which could be interpreted as advertising for the McAfee Institute. I'm going to do a bit of copyediting, and touch up the spelling and grammar while I'm at it. Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. I found the article whilst looking up some very odd looking post-nominals I found on a profile suggested to me on LinkedIn. I am rather interested in honourifics, styles and post-nominals, especially when they're used rather pretentiously or even better, used completely incorrect. The lady in question was using them, all of which are of the subject matter, laughably OTT. A good rule of thumb is, if you've never heard of the institution, there is very little press coverage and it doesn't have a Royal Charter or Government-recognised industry-body status, especially if they're asking for large amounts of money up front, then it's a good indication that it's likely a scam. If it's made of wood and quacks, then it's a duck. I prefer not to delete articles, but this probably should be deleted as it has no notability other than that of sharing the name with McAfee, which is likely what most people think they are... UaMaol (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Uamaol I dug a little deeper, and I think you're spot-on. I endorse nominating this article for deletion on grounds of notability. Thank you for your exceptional investigative work!
 * Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)