Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentry Parental Controls (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   no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 01:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sentry Parental Controls
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a puff piece created by blocked spammer User:Sentryparentalcontrols. The puff piece is about some software. I am unconvinced that the software was ever notable. Worse yet, the company doesn't appear to sell the software anymore.

Software is created. Spammers spam Wikipedia to advertise the software. The software is discontinued, and fades away, like smoke dispersing into the wind. But the Wikipedia article remains until someone deletes it. It's time for us to delete the article.

Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and/or per WP:IAR.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't find out whether it's still sold or not - Amazon returns 'not currently available' or something like that. But the US Federal Trade Commission filed a suit against it (privacy, deceptive selling practices) and that issue has coverage in two books, I added those as refs in the article along with two FTC site refs. Two book mentions ("enduring coverage"), the coverage of the FTC suit, and the Daily Telegraph article suffice for GNG, as I see it. Novickas (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Novickas, for adding the FTC info. However, most of the article is still promotional, like the "must have" part. If the FTC section could be fitted into Computer_surveillance then this article could be a delete LaMona (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an idea...but I don't see any section in Computer_surveillance, as it's currently written, that it would fit into. There do seem to be a fair number of articles out there about consumer surveillance software . (It needs a section on that, no? But I'm not up to creating it.) Most of them address completely inadvertent surveillance. Like this . I'd support a Redirect if someone does expand the Computer Surveillance article to include a section where someone could reasonably put ref'd info about this product. A redirect preserves the article and its refs. But it doesn't make any sense without a dedicated section about it in the target article. I don't know how often Merge outcomes are affirmed at AFD and I wonder how often the merged material then ends up getting lost. So, pending the inclusion of the referenced material, which I see as worthwhile, into some other article, I'd prefer to keep it. Novickas (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment while it was briefly covered in the trade, it doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. I'm unaware of specific software criteria, but think it's borderline at best. A redirect to its industry might be warranted. StarM 02:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2014 (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.