Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton PC Checkup


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 09:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Norton PC Checkup

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

No assertion of notability. One source, a primary source linking directly to Symantec. Other information purely speculation or original research. Can be noted in the Adobe Flash article for more publicity, rather than having a separate and orphaned article. TechOutsider (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis that it is notable and verifiable, which are our primary criteria. I don;t think you can dismiss an article in CNET News as Original research, you know.  To me that passes WP:RS with some ease.  Sources can always be improved and a poor source is not a valid reason to nominate for deletion, simply a reason to enhance an article.  There are intriguing sources that do not pass our criteria which discuss some controversy about the service.  Finding a reliable one would be valuable.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Keep! I think every Norton products should have their own seperate articles on Wikipedia!  --Tyw7 ‍  ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  13:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. -- samj in out 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment one article is not enough to constitute an article. TechOutsider (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
 * Comment There is more than one reference in the article in addition to the link to the principal's site. And a single reference is sufficient if it is a WP:RS reference and is good enough.  No-one will die if it gets merged and no-one will die if it gets kept.  But the references are sufficient.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere. -- samj in out 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Does not meet WP:OR; unsourced information; "Running the software to end of job results in suggestions that further software or services are bought in order to remove the problems stated to be found." True, however no references provided. TechOutsider (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton  Talk  ·  Review  00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Oh how I hate the Norton pop-up that infects a personal computer. "You are not fully protected"- "Renew now (recommended)" or "Remind me in 24 hours".  As with Gateway's "your hard drive will fail" ad, I wish there was a third option I could click that said "get the fuck lost and don't bother me again". Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the main tools from Symantec, can be improved with sources. DinajGao (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "main tools"? Sources? A short burst of coverage in the media does not constitute a full article dedicated to the subject. TechOutsider (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
 * Like Mandsford I wish I could delete this from my computer. If no further sources can be found (which surprises me) I think we should merge this article somewhere. Nerfari (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; appears to be notable. I have added another reference. Dialectric (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are some of these references not press releases? Nerfari (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not whether or not it is a press release that matters, it is the place that carries the release that gives it importance. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It might give importance, but without analysis it doesn't make them independent. Nerfari (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As part of a notable series on Symantec. Jwray (talk) 06:31, 30 March 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.