Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComboFix (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ComboFix
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Last AFD was relisted twice without anything resembling a consensus: one WP:USEFUL and one suggestion to merge somewhere. Seriously, let's go or get off the pot with this article. It's written like an ad, is very listy, and lacks secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

''Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Sock puppet.''


 * Delete, per my past nomination (see the link to the side). blurredpeace ☮ 19:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Thundercats Ho!! Ah, anyway, that is an advertorial of some sort, no good for here even under the weak pretense of WP:USEFUL. treelo  radda  19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) User blocked for sockpuppetry. Icestorm815 •  Talk  22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article is written like an advertisment, and I am uncertain about the reliability of the sources, particularly the third one, which appears to be the results of an online malware scan. There are 600-odd hits in Google News for "ComboFix", but most of these are passing mentions as part of a general solution to a posted or hypothetical computer problem written about in tech support columns (or "help me" posts on tech websites, which Google News Australia appears to index for some reason). As an aside, repeated vandalism of the deletion discussion is not helping the article's case. -- saberwyn 22:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources are questionable at best, relatively few and unremarkable Google hits, doesn't seem notable. Some of it sounds like an ad as well. See also: Seems listy.. -- Intelligent  sium  22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteI could find no substantive reviews and there is nothing in the article to raise it to encyclopedic levels. I can't even find anything on-line that could be used to improve the article. // BL \\ (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertisement and no reliable sources to establish notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no good sources to pass WP:N, no independient third-party sources to write a balanced article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing acceptable about it, pure advetorial. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no worthwhile sources. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This virus-remover program probably has value to somebody who already knows how to use it, perhaps through personal experience or having it explained to them by a malware expert. (The Google hits suggest that some people have success with it). Unfortunately we can't write a real article without proper sources, and there are none that I could find. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - sketchy ad with sketchy references for a sketchy piece of software. Not notable, not a single WP:RS included...Paleking (talk) 22:29, 17 June 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.