Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpyHunter


 * 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   delete. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

SpyHunter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software article written by the makers of the software, User:Enigmasoftwaregroup. See also the previous discussion at Articles for deletion/Enigma software group. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. The topic is a non-notable software in reliable sources. TBrandley (what's up) 19:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and retarget to Spy Hunter. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep But Fix - Nomination is a bit deceptive. Yes, the company wrote an WP:COI article about their software... in 2006 (aka over 6 years ago). Since then, the article has been seriously reworked, sabotaged, reworked, sabotaged, etc. There are a ton of references missing from the current version of the article, specifically all of the negative reviews. The software is crap (imo), but there have been plenty of reviews done on it over the years that you can find links to by viewing history. It appears that the company is trying to remove negative press (a current WP:COI issue, but one that doesn't require deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete in many discussions of computer security over the years I've never even heard this mentioned once. While that's merely anecdotal, the fact that the article's lone source is one two-star review from 6 years ago rather underscores just how obscure this is. Redirect to Spy Hunter, the 80s driving game. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment - Your statement is not accurate. The sources were all deleted from the current version of the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently, the lone reference is to this review, which basically says that it exists and it sucks. If there's better sources in the history (or elsewhere), then by all means add them.  Improving an article during an AFD isn't just allowed, it's encouraged! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete COI issues aside (and I left a warning in the user's page about their choice of name) or the notability of the company itself, this simply isn't notable. There's nothing out there that would get it past WP:GNG. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It looks like the removed links to negative reviews were mostly not useful as reliable sources (spywarewarrior.com, anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com, 2-spyware.com), although this About.com post could be OK (see author profile). I tried searching for better sources and could only find brief coverage: PCWorld Q&A post, item in USA Today list, CNet mention, PCWorld mention. Google News found a few more behind paywalls, but in all, these sources aren't enough to show notability. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2013 (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.