Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ParetoLogic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company that uses Wikipedia as a way to advertise. See Articles_for_deletion/RegCure Bahustard 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What proof do you have that the "as advertised at Wikipedia" page is owned by ParetoLogic? As far as I can see, that page is at getview.net, and could be a scam with nothing to do with this company, but using one of their products as bait. Note the amateurish style of the page, then read the business awards given to ParetoLogic on their article. You could very easily be making libellous claims here - the claims on the RegCure article are also unsourced other than a single page at getview.net. Thomjakobsen 21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This appears to be the official RegCure page, not the getview.net one. Notice the differences in quality. Thomjakobsen 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't add that claim, and thanks to the firewall at work, can't check either site until I get home. I found it amusing to have spotted the addition, but it wasn't the basis for adding AfDs to the rest of the company's legacy. -Bahustard 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of google references to their products appear to be bogus downloads, scam "warning" articles and obscure forum posts. They appear to be very active targets of the malware industry - not surprising given the nature of their products - so it would be best to keep the discussion here and on the other AfDs to questions of notability. From what I can gather, they are legitimate (i.e. not malware) but their product names are spoofed actively all over the internet, so let's keep claims of "malware" and "dubious bonafides" out of it. Legal matters being what they are. Thomjakobsen 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to keep my AfDs on here on the basis of notability and use of Wikipedia for advertising. While I do think they're gray at best, I don't have anything but my experiences to show for it.  The near-impossibility of getting credible articles, along with the sheer advertising nature of the articles, provides enough reason as it is. -Bahustard 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't doubt that someone at the company probably started this article, but that doesn't mean it's not a notable subject. I removed some marketroid phrasing. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Just an FYI they are a member of an affiliate directory meaning anyone can get paid for traffic/conversions. This probably makes them a very popular target for spyware and malware as their authors are able to make commissions if they can drive their victims to sign up for the "cure" to the problem that they are causing.  It does not necessarily mean the company is non-notable however.  RegCure is probably the best selling registry cleaner on-line right now.  Or at least the most advertised.  On the other hand, it is most likely someone advertising the product that has created this page.  Many people will probably try to use wikipedia as a reference for the claims of awards being won being true.  It could have easily been written by promoters of the product in order to create sales.  We are talking about people who put up websites that advertise the product.  Their own advertisement serves as a reference for the article in accordance with wikipedia's policy.  It will be hard to decide how to deal with problems such as this because there is a genuine need for an article on this company.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.159.141 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: In that case, documenting these issues in the Wikipedia article would be a useful response to any attempt to exploit Wikipedia for marketing purposes. If ParetoLogic is among those who have distributed malware disguised as anti-malware utilities, I would think this would be well documented by their legitimate competitors, or better, in the IT press. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, we don't really have any concrete proof that ParetoLogic themselves are distributing rogue software. Some of us are convinced of it, but that's not the same thing.  Presumably, they've got a system in place that has made it painfully easy to exploit for gain, but that's still not quite the same thing.  Especially if we can't get anything citable.  The basis for the AfDs lies in notability and the marketeering nature of the company and its products' articles.  Bahustard 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since my last edit here, I've gone and whacked away more marketing language in the article, including two entire sections. Maybe that will help. The company is notable, sure, but there were too many inflated claims, links to product reviews, and a list of awards that are of no significance outside British Columbia. I'll keep watching the article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   — Rob C. alias Alarob 04:17, 14 September 2007 (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.