Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick Heal


 * 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. Three issues here:

Notability. First and foremost, the article meets WP:ORG per Forbes India, the Business Standard, and The Economic Times.

Paid editing. It's likely that the page creator is in violation of our paid editing policies. If the article is notable. though, we should still keep it.

Reliability of the sources. I respectfully disagree with User:SwisterTwister that "we cannot confide in India's publications, even if known and major, to not publish company advertising." It's not for us as Wikipedia editors to make that call. Our standard is verifiability, not truth, and so we should rely on the sources above even if we suspect they are advertising. Cerebellum (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick Heal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Purely promotional work by paid editor. Sourced to blogs and procedural coverage. Editing patterns consistent with paid PR editing, especially awards and acquisitions infodumps.

WP:OWNer Snkay9 accidentally revealed himself to be a paid PR editor | in this edit where he attempted to link a Word document called "Revised Quick Heal Wikipedia Page.doc" by linking it from his Outlook inbox. '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 20:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Linking Word document is not direct clue about paid editing (eg. I did similar thing, when I prepared some bigger changes offline). However, sources in this article are too weak to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually pretty damning evidence - look at the directory it was linked from. He received these instructions via email. '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep (Modifying my comment). As excessive spam articles come from India, even notable articles from India are being seen as corporate spam. This company is covered in many reliable sources, which are third party and independent. The coverage is not for few days but for years, in not one source but in multiple sources. WP:GEOBIAS should be avoided. Editors should try to find some better AFD article as I did here, Articles for deletion/Shopma.in. Wasting time to delete a notable article as it is from India is  pointless. -- Marvellous  Spider-Man  16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Company may be notable, but sources used in the article aren´t convincing. Please, could you (or anybody other) provide better sources for review? Pavlor (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources in the article is not a reason to Delete. A basic Step D in WP:BEFORE can give better sources. Marvellous Spider-Man  14:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it should be simple task to provide 3 references you think are best? Pavlor (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment- I am not supposed to research among thousands of sources. Articles created by paid editors can't be deleted if it has notability. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Marvellous Spider-Man  12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My mini-review of your sources:


 * 1: About issue of shares - seems to be based on informations provided directly by the company = weak source
 * 2: Most of the text is by company representative; no author mentioned (only "Press Trust of India") = weak source
 * 3: About their report about Cyber-Attack, not much about the company; no author mentioned (only "Press Trust of India") = useable source
 * 4: Entirely based on informations provided by company representative; Written by Agencies... = weak source
 * 5: About issue of shares (same issue as 1) - seems to be based on informations provided directly by the company = weak source
 * 6: New COO - seems to be based on press-release, but at least something about the company (its representative) = weak/useable source
 * 7: Company acquisition - seems to be based on press-release = weak source
 * 8: About issue of shares (same issue as 1) and allegations against the company); behind pay-wall; no author mentioned ("BS Reporter") = useable source
 * 9: Company responds to allegations (see 8); short news; no author mentioned ("our bureau") = useable source
 * 10: About issue of shares (same issue as 1); behind pay-wall; no author mentioned (BS Reporter) = useable source


 * Conclusion: If these are best sources about this company, this article has no place on Wikipedia, I fear. 6 of these source cover plain issue of shares... the rest is not much better. (Note about my source ratings: weak = no notability estabilished (no RS); useable = some notability estabilished (somewhat RS), but only thin coverage; good = notability estabilished (RS), broad coverage). Pavlor (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:GEOBIAS. Wikipedia has no term called useable source, as you have branded them. These sources are third party independent sources. The amount of scrutiny you are doing here, if this level of scrutiny is done on other company/organization articles, then I believe 79% of all WP:COMPANY articles in Wikipedia will be deleted. This AFD discussion is about Notability, not about content dispute in the article. Editors can reduce the article into a stub. School articles with complete zero sources, zero result in Google news are kept in Wikipedia as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My source rating is explained at the end of my first post... I should add RS = reliable source. Pavlor (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep : There are significant coverage about the Quick Heal in multiple independent sources which is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. —  San ska ri  Hangout 14:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All I'm seeing is TOI/ET used as PR blog hosts and procedural coverage by stock market sites. This is why I nominated, my own searches returned the same problem. Could you please cite an independent, reliable source discussing Quick Heal? <tt>'''- Je <span style="background-color:
 * 1) f3f; color:black;">rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter</tt> 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A simple search is giving more than 7 million search results from the reliable sources -- I don't think that there could be more than that to establish notability as per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE. —  San ska ri  Hangout 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7 million sources != 7 million reliable sources. ORGDEPTH is about seeking quality over quantity, not the other way around. <tt>'''- Je <span style="background-color:


 * 1) f3f; color:black;">rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter</tt> 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Update : I've removed some promotional contents and added few reliable sources. —  San ska ri  Hangout 17:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've deleted the unsourced list (thank you), and added yet another press release. These are not establishing GNG, they're just establishing the company's ability to publish press releases and PR blogs. Do you see my issue here? <tt>'''- Je <span style="background-color:


 * 1) f3f; color:black;">rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter</tt> 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This PCMag article about Quick Heal AntiVirus Pro was mentioned in the original PROD: I also found The Inquirer article about iOS security vulnerability discovered by Quick Heal and others:  Sure, still not ideal sources about this company, but far better than republished press-releases. Pavlor (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the Inquirer article (which is an actual article by a staff editor!) makes a genuine case for notability by citing Quick Heal as a subject expert, thank you. It's still rather strange to me that he cited QH rather than the normal resources (Malwarebytes, Sophos) but it shows that they have a presence and reputation. <tt>'''- Je <span style="background-color:


 * 1) f3f; color:black;">rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter</tt> 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

– A google search shows, Quick Heal was covered by forbes way back in 2012. This puts up a good case of showing its repute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.154.169 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If that Forbes outlet has similar permissive publishing policy as other Forbes portals, then no, it is weak source. Pavlor (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment AV-Comparatives lists Quick Heal among other anti-virus, internet security software. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  07:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or importance. The current copy contains:
 * In 2008, Quick Heal were selected as hosts for the AVAR 2008 International conference held at Delhi.[12] In 2010, Quick Heal received an investment of ₹ 60 Crores from Sequoia Capital[13] And new branch offices were opened in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. In 2012, offices were opened in Japan and US, and in 2013, offices were opened in Africa and UAE.
 * We have here inconsequential intricate detail; news of funding (routine); office directory (belongs on company web site). The rest of the article is pretty much same. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. Poor sources. The only potentially good source is Forbes, and a single source does not suffice WP:NCORP. Plus, I have lost a lot of respect for Forbes since I realized they are running a ton of blogs with little editor oversight. Verdict: likely WP:CORPSPAM. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as one thing we've laid here at AfD is that we cannot immediately confide in these publications alone, and this is because of the sheer blatancy of advertising, and that's the case here, regardless of anything. The only solutions for such questionability is to remove them altogether since they are both not improvable or convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep : There is a lot of significant coverage for Quick Heal. Similar to PC Magzine, Quick Heal is also listed on SC Magazine, ZD Net Links : http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-look-at-quick-heal-mobile-security/ & http://www.scmagazineuk.com/quick-heal-technologies-endpoint-security-total-with-dlp/review/4613/.

Apart from the sources, Quick Heal is a well known provider of products and solutions in the Security software industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopdead (talk • contribs) 20:15, December 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment- The sources I gave are better than yours, and they are WP:IRS sources. If they don't get convinced by The Economic Times, The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, The Indian Express sources, they won't change their decision by checking your links. The administrator will take his/her decision. Creating new accounts will only give more confidence to delete voters. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  16:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear WP:SPA, please note that notability is not inherited, and so the cited product reviews don't help here. They are relavant to discussion of notability of the products, not for the company. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, Quick Heal is definitely a notable company
 * Comment Amazon too rates Quick Heal as a Notable Brand in today's coverage in a leading daily ' Economic Times' http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/mobile-antivirus-software-sold-most-in-2016-amazon/articleshow/55834459.cms.
 * Unlike others, I see products as part of company life, their reviews in reliable sources may help to improve notability of the company article. Looking at sources you provided:
 * scmagazineuk.com - review of product by magazine staff writer (apparently); looks like good source
 * zdnet.com - looks good, but it is introduced as Mobile India blog post; blogs aren´t usually reliable source
 * economictimes.indiatimes.com - passing mention among many other products = useable source
 * From my experience, company articles need much better sources than other topics to survive AfD. Promotional language, suspected COI and SPAs are warning signs for many Wikipedia editors. Pavlor (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment- User:Pavlor's review of sources are his own views. Most of his comments are wrong. He is finding unreliable sources as good source and third party WP:RS sources as bad source. His edit count is very low as compared to his 8 year old account. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course my mini-review of sources represents only my view (what else?)... What source(s) I found as good you think is(are) unreliable? Edit count as mark of quality? What to say, this conversation becomes really amusing. Pavlor (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep while the article maybe written poorly and need updating, saying a company listed on the India NSE isn't notable is kind of crazy. The NSE is their largest according to Wikipedia . The Times of India also isn't just a blog. Ferrari250 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ferrari, and Spider-man are right. There are good sources. The nom didn't even really try to make a case. If there is a COI issue with this article or editor then make that case at COIN. COI is not a reason for deletion.--Adam in MO Talk 03:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles from The Economic Times The Economic Times/Press Trust of India,   Business Standard,   The Indian Express,  The Hindu,  NDTV/Press Trust of India,,   would seem to be enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article needs work, but the subject is notable.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All sources you listed except one (University course) are about issue of shares in February 2016. Is this really only visible basis for notability of QuickHeal? Pavlor (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The very first source I listed is about a corporate acquisition by QuickHeal that isn't at all related to its IPO, so I'm not sure how in depth you looked at these sources. While several of the stories are about the IPO, many of them are in the context of a lawsuit regarding share ownership at that time, which is distinct enough from the IPO to be another fount of notability. One of the articles from Business Standard is also technically about the IPO buts gives a profile of the company as a whole. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and I meant to comment sooner, and something I'll note first is the fact we've established as it is we cannot confide in India's publications, even if known and major, to not publish company advertising and that's clearly the case in the suggested links above; it's noticeable because all of them have the same consistency in only actually focusing with the company's advertised information and businesses hence clear advertising. Another is that simply notice the sheer case of this article also clearly existing to only advertise the company itself. Therefore removal is entirely applicable with policy WP:NOT because it allows removal of anything that is otherwise business advertising-like or otherwise unsuitable for an actual encyclopedia. Delete, as it's clear this is advertising, "but there are sources!" be damned; another says "but these sources are good" hence not actually acknowledging policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister   talk  20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment All Indian sources are being branded as paid news and unreliable. These non-notable Indian company even paid money to Reuters? BRIEF-Quick Heal Technologies Sept-qtr profit rises. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  10:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 short sentences. That is really broad coverage... Source text: Company document about financial results. Such sources can be used for verifitability, but are too thin to show notability of the subject. Pavlor (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That itself is clear PR as it is because Reuters is one of the worst blatant ones to republished such information. SwisterTwister   talk  01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment The discussion is absolutely outrageous. To say that news sources from Indian publications is not trustworthy is autocratic and baseless. India has the largest number of publications int he world and TOI is the read english newspaper in the world. Yes. I do believe that the onus is on the guys to proove that Quick Heal is not notable company after giving references from multiple 'Known' Indian publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopdead (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The references provided above meet WP:RS criteria and therefore the topic is notable and meets WP:CORP. The objection is that this article is SPAM, not that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article. There's a worrying trend on AfD to nominate articles whose topics meet notability criteria but whose content is SPAMmy. Deletion is not an appropriate step for these articles - it is a simple matter to delete the SPAMmy content and tag the article for attention. -- HighKing ++ 15:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the same thing when WP:NOT in fact applies especially considering all of these numerous accounts quickly coming to this AfD; we should'nt compromise with such blatancy and it's clear we can only solve such concerns by deletion entirely, not saving it for the company itself. WP:CORP and WP:RS are'nt applying since this is clearly company-motivated advertising and thus such guidelones are not applicable, but WP:NOT in fact is since it's policy. SwisterTwister   talk  01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with your application of WP:NOT and your interpretation is not supported by the relevant policies and guidelines. At the end of WP:NOT it lists the actions an editor should follow, which are:
 * When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:
 * Changing the content of an article (normal editing)
 * Changing the page into a redirect, preserving the page history
 * Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there.
 * Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the Talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.
 * The first course of action is to edit the article. Further, when we then look at the grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page, we find at criteria 4
 * 4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * It is clear that the first duty is to change the content of an article and to only delete if there is no relevent encyclopedic content. Some of the content is completely promotional but there is enough content remaining to merit an article.


 * Delete., the references are not substantial coverage--they amount to pres releases or notices, no matter where published.  DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * DGG These are not the only sources available. The heading and the content was about Quick Heal. What other susbstantial coverage should be given? Did you search google news typing "Quick Heal", "Quick Heal technologies", "Quick Heal antivirus". What are you expecting from the sources?  -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To weigh in here, I'll note everything I'm finding is still only published and republished PR, regardless of publication and name, because it's the contents about this company that matters, and it's suggesting it's only PR-based. Regardless if there were 100 or 200 of such PR, it would still not help. SwisterTwister   talk  03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which Indian newspapers and Indian news channels are considered reliable? Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express, The Hindu ? Or all Indian sources are considered unreliable? As this is going on with the delete votes. If anyone is concerned about paid editors, then full protect the page indefinitely. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Every newspaper in the world publishes what amounts to press releases at times (another name for them is "human interest stories") . It's necessary to read the articles to determine their nature. There is no source that is absolutely always reliable. Its factors like these that make GNG a very complicated standard, instead of the simple number counting that it might seem to be. (Less controversially,  it's against policy to protect a page indefinitely for fear that a paid editor will turn it into a frank advertisement. We have to first let the disruption happen, which means that for articles subject to such things, we need to watch them all carefully. In practice, nobody is going to watch routine company articles except the company.)   DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources provided are noteworthy. If anything, article needs to be restructured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * new editors like you will not help my case with Keep votes. The article won't get deleted with one million delete votes, if it has notability (which exists in this particlular case). And your votes are very suspicious. You guys will waste my time as meatpuppetry will only stiffen the resolve of Delete voters. This very notable article was written by paid editors and WP:COI editors. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is kept, it does indeed need to be restructured, and if nobody else does it, I might. But I would much rather devote my efforts to fixing the articles of volunteers, than of paid contributors. , why should editors like us do work that others have been paid for when there is so much else that needs or attention?  DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken the copyedit hatchet to the article and cleaned it up. Personally I don't care if an editor is paid or not so long as the article itself is decent. But I'd expect a paid editor to know the policies and guidelines and how to format a citation properly....if I was paying for this article I'd demand a refund. ;-) -- HighKing ++ 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It's really quite a poor article, and a lot of the sources (as they stand now) are passing mentions of the 'company' in discussions of their 'product', or likely reprinted press releases of their financial minutiae. However, the Forbes India is undoubtedly an article 'about' the company, the ETI article as well though less informative. Listing on NSE and Bombay Stock Exchange also tips balance slightly towards keep - we have historically biased towards keep for companies listed on major stock exchanges since they are, and will continue to be, subject to analyst and press coverage. Agree among others with HighKing, DGG, and others above - there is much here that is spammy, but ultimately there is (at least marginally) enough available to write and maintain an article about a company that is (at least marginally) notable. (Noting I came here without being invited by anyone, without any connection to the company -- just a long-time semi-active wikipedian who clicked on the oldest unclosed AFDs. In this case I see lots of parallels with AFDs and DRVs about Arch Coal, admittedly a much larger multinational, but where some of the same issues were hashed through years ago (7 years+-). Martinp (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * keep. A notable company producing antivirus software. Sources are there. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2016 (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.