Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIPRE


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

VIPRE

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inadequate evidence of notability. The single PCmgazine review isn't enough, and there isn't anything else here as a reliable source., nor did find anything additional. Earlier versions had highly promotional content also.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wondered when I started my search, but I think this is a case where they've changed names too often for their own good. The three top references, all of which I added, are independent coverage of the company, and we also have CounterSpy (software), which is about a product of Sunbelt Software. (See my note on the talk page for the Vipre article suggesting a merger of some sort, which pre-dates this AfD). The sources indicate that the company was originally Sunbelt Software; there's a merger and a re-founding in its history, but there are three corporate names and probably more sources yet to be found in addition to the 3 (and further reviews of the product that I didn't add). The editor with the apparent COI has been trying to make a case via accolades/distinctions; reading the reviews, that doesn't apply, but I believe GNG is met. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This anti-virus product recently was rated one of the best a nti-virus products by the premier anti-virus rating organizations. From a software design/technical point of view their product is very good. However, from a marketing point of view Avast/Norton outdo them.  But I think the product gets an adequate amount of industry citations/awards to merit a Wikipedia article.Knox490 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good morning - Thanks for your notes and direction. The company does have a confusing history and naming conventions. The history is Sunbelt Software, GFI Software and ThreatTrack Security dba VIPRE. Although our legal name is ThreatTrack Security, we are associating ourselves with our DBA- VIPRE. www.VIPRE.com I'd be happy to help source this with our legal docs that may help. I'll look for guidance here. I don't want the page deleted if I can work with you all to source the edit requests. Jasongrantnorton (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jasongrantnorton, legal documents are of no use; the issue of the name isn't that important in this discussion, and legal documents are, at any rate, primary. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters can provide links to references? Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a notable company/product from the coverage, with multinational operations, and referenced in a number of industry titles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - well known in the industry and there are more references when you look for the previous names. Not a household name however. Shritwod (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the programs reviewed in AV-TEST. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2018 (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.