Talk:PDF Split and Merge

Notability
Well, that is a good idea to add some secondary sources reference information to the PDFSaM page.

Not that such sources indicate the notability of any piece of software. The existence and use of software do.

Which is shown by webpages like this — verbose articles and instructions on the installation and use of software on the user communities' websites.

Nevertheless, such sources can easily be found.

Like this article on the Russian web site assisting school teachers in free software adoption, or the article on the IT-related Heinz Heise publishing house website, or the short news article on the Lifehacker.com, or the verbose article on Makeuseof.com (the weblog about software in general), the Ubuntu user discussions about the proper way of the PDFSaM upgrade, another article at ossdoc.com, the editorial review on Software Informer, the short description with comments on the Linux Mint community page, the discussion on several PDF utilities (including PDFSaM) on the PDFCreator website...

A review in Linux Magazine.

But! Where on the PDFSaM article would you place such references? Limmeren (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

False claims of PDF Split and Merge being Malware
Beside the fact that these claims where unsourced, they are wrong and thus defamatory!

According to my research, there have been false-positive alerts for this software, but the developer notified the anti virus company of these.

PDFSaM board discussion

Scan of the Windows MSI package and the Java Starter executable:

Virustotal: pdfsam-v2_2_4.msi

VirusTotal: PDFSAM_STARTER.EXE (Ignore the Jiangmin Antivirus false positive shown in the latter scan)

asklucas (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)