Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comodo Internet Security


 * 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   keep. JForget 02:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comodo Internet Security

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete non-notable software. It's claim to fame seems to be two short reviews in PCWorld and PCMagazine. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that [PC Magazine review http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2333811,00.asp] is quite substantial, with 8 webpages. (Perhaps you only saw the overview?) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 00:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: It has a fair amount of users around...a couple million, according to a post I saw lately by the CEO on the forum. You think it needs more sources then?  Or does someone need to write a long review about something for it to be in Wikipedia? --LaserWraith (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You got it. A couple of someones need to write substantial reviews about it, and publish the reviews in reliable publications (electronic or hard-copy doesn't matter, fact-checking does). That is a large part of what makes an encyclopedia different from the news or Internet blogs. --Bejnar (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are two more reviews about CIS, and the new beta v. 4. Comodo Internet Security 4 Review, Comodo Internet Security Review. --LaserWraith (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment found a couple of short reviews in finnish magazine MikroBitti: (preview, full article only for subscribers). Not sure if it is enough to show notability however; both mentions are on the magazines "monthly recommended free software" article.(edit: forgot signature MKFI (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep The PC Magazine and PCWorld reviews establish notability. (And I've added a "reviews" section to this article.) The article does need cleanup. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think it needs a bit of cleanup. Just not deletion...I will try and clean it up, and maybe recruit some friends. --LaserWraith (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect, sources seems to satisfy minimal requirements. --SF007 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - does a plain vanilla Review of a product denote it as Notable? Each must be interpreted. Were they Paid to conduct their Review? Was the Product maker linked in any way to the Reviewers? Would every product mentioned in Consumers Digest be notable? Would a Review of a Band lend the band Notability? Just because a Product has been looked at by someone, does not make it actually WP:Notable. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Exit2DOS, are you suggesting that PCWorld and/or PCMagazine are not WP:independent in this case? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Reviews are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Anyone can have one done, just by sending a reviewer a free copy. Even if it turnes out to be a Bad review, does that anoint the product with WP:Notability ? Would every product mentioned in Consumers Digest (or any other reviewing magazine) be notable? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually most reviews and content on the internet makes money in some way or another. If all content was not counted because someone made money off of it, not much would be left.  In addition, people are more likely to review popular products and so draw more visitors to their page.  Though a reviewer may have some bias, they are less likely to review an unpopular product than a popular one. --LaserWraith (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you grasp my point, Do Reviews alone lend WP:Notability to anything? If the only people talking about something are Reviewers, be it either good/bad/indifferent opinions, Is that enough to achieve Notability? Does the Consumers Digest review of the latest desk lamp give that model of desk lamp Notability over and above what is on Desk lamp? Does every model of Tiffany lamp deserve an Article? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good question--regarding Reviews and notability--and I think it's worth coming up with a more specific guideline for software notability. But I don't think that the only people talking about this software are reviewers; just the only WP:RS's that are easy to find. In particular, I think that its notability is established in part by a long PC Magazine review in their The Best Security Suites for 2009. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it and let these guys clean it up a bit! Their are more than just "[a] couple someones" running Comodo Internet Security; deleting this article would be an immense disappointment! It's notable software and with this recent release of version 4 one could say with utmost certainty, we will see more reviews! If any of you shall still stumble in doubt? I highly recommend you run Comodo on your own PC and review it for yourselves! So many people past, present and future have and will rely on this article! Respectfully and very sincerely, --RunTrax (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Fairly widespread use, especially since it's one of the freely available software of this kind. The deletion request seems to be a bit underresearched. --grin &#9998; 11:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did research it, and all I found were short reviews like the ones in PCWorld and PCMagazine. Being free means that there is less likelihood of press releases and other corporate advertising. Yet, I had hoped to see some in depth reviews. Haven't yet. --Bejnar (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: add PCAdvisor UK, TechWorld UK, ConsumerResearch (Indi blog), PCAuthority (.AU host) under media coverage. It's legit, it's publicized, and it works...just because some "average users" haven't heard of it yet, does not mean it needs to be pulled from wiki. VulpineLady (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is: Do one paragraph reviews constitute "significant coverage"? Yes it is real, that's not the issue, nor is how well it works. --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer is YES: Comodo is used by ViruTotal it's less than a paragraph, it's actually a one liner; however, I believe it's significant coverage! Everyone who scans a file sees Comodo listed as one of the scanners. VirusTotal was selected by PC World as one of the best 100 products of 2007.--RunTrax (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep COMODO is the best free AV software - Polish PC WORLD review 2nd place was avast! and 3rd place was AVG Free, are they "non-notable software" too?--RunTrax (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple, reliable sources have been added. Ekerazha (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2010 (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.