Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeFuel


 * 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 Revert as this seems convincing enough to close and there are apparently no solid Delete votes (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

CodeFuel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page was initially "Conduit" on 3 January 2015 and "Conduit toolbar" until 20 August 2015. Both Conduit and "Conduit toolbar" was notable. On 2 October 2015, the page was moved from another new name, Conduit (publisher network and platform) to CodeFuel, which doesn't makes sense as CodeFuel is a different product of Perion Network and nothing to do with the toolbar. The Conduit was merged with Perion and nothing to do with CodeFuel. A new page, Conduit (company) was created on 7 May 2015‎ which is itself the toolbar company along with a few new products. It is clear that page was strategically renamed 4 times to give an advantage and separate the negative news about the toolbar. See Techcrunch.

CodeFuel is clearly Delete and redirect, looking at the references, they all are about Toolbar which is Conduit (company). This page is renamed 4 times in a year, which looks very suspicious however still this page is clearly a delete. CodeFuel can be redirected to Perion and "Conduit toolbar" can be redirected to Conduit (company). Kavdiamanju (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Perion. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Revert to Coduit toolbar. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Revert to a much earlier version and rename back to the tool bar. What we have here is an attempt to whitewash Conduit, but does not appear to be based on any genuine source that codeFuel is the same as Conduit. After all Conduit tool bar was the notable thing, and any live as CodeFuel does not seem to be notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In particular revert to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CodeFuel&oldid=682201846 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Revert to previous and move to Conduit (toolbar) Just because the product/company has been discontinued doesn't mean the article ceases to contain valid information. Given the nature of the software and the constant renaming, it appears to be an attempt to make information about the toolbar more difficult to find. The current article appears to have been whitewashed and contains lines such as "Some antimalware tools find this program PUP. In fact, this program is only protecting a default factory settings of Internet Explorer by asking for an explicit user's permission." Such statements contradict the well-established fact that Conduit is considered PUP/malware and there are several sources to back up the malware claim. Talk:CodeFuel indicates COI whitewashing too. Elaenia (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Revert to Conduit (toolbar), the nature of the edits is very clear, as suggested revert to the previous version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CodeFuel&oldid=682201846 Nik.gourley (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Close and Revert to the original toolbar nameology. As suggested by Graeme Bartlett, there is an ongoing chain of edits by some users causing one to have the idea that something is questionable. I am having the impression that someone is involved and prone to behave in an untrustworthy manner. Reverting to the earlier version will mostly resolve the issues raised by the nominator. Revert to Conduit (toolbar)Hurricaneginger21 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Revert to Conduit (toolbar) version seems to a right decision. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.