Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComboFix


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ComboFix

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The tool has an assertion of notability on web forums, and is a widely popular security tool, but little documentation is existent online. The reliability of good references, on this tool, are slim to none. The references currently used, though I added some myself, aren't good enough for a Wikipedia standard article. In a nutshell, it's just not expandable and doesn't assert its notability past web forums. blurredpeace ☮ 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This software is currently being used by both IT professionals (at my Job) and non-professionals as a last resort to remove malware. ComboFix's utility probably warrants it having an entry in the Wikipedia, and the tone of this article (descriptive or explanitory) is valuable, because most of the web-references I have seen only describe the use of the program. -vincent powell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.34 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Comment. This looks like a decent source, but it was the only one I could find. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be KEPT. I'm trying to clean a computer, and I need information like this. The program is recommended by various people, but I want a quick way to find out what it does and whether there is anything negative I need to know about it before I start using it. Wikipedia is a convenient place to find such information. So long as the article is not deleted! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a good reason to keep the page Eric. If you need the information, you can get it elsewhere. If it doesn't exist in another source, it is unverifiable and unsuitable for Wikipedia anyway. If you need it, it should be available somewhere, that doesn't mean that place HAS to be Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's unlikely this needs to be deleted outright. Maybe merged to an article on antispyware techniques in general, but let the people who would actually write such an article decide. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2009 (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.