Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wajam (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   delete. Secret account 01:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wajam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Multiple issues with this article (neutrality, lack of notability, misleading section about "undesired installations" written in the most Wajam-favorable viewpoint possible).

Combined with the fact that representatives of the company regularly revert or change edits, either openly or via anonymous IP access from the Montreal area (where the company is based), and there are strong indications that this page is ripe for deletion. If an article is kept, it needs to be rewritten from a much more neutral viewpoint, with a reasonable amount of emphasis on the fact that this company's software is mainly installed on end user machines without their knowledge or consent.Jkjdeff (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Jkjdeff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - I've had to manually create this page as nom buggered it up, I apologize in advance If I myself have screwed anything up!, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm afraid chaps and I really hope, if its not this, that you find a valuable product to work on. Current quotes are jokers and malware ... and that's just from one of several what is and remove pages http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_other-windows_programs/how-did-wajam-get-on-my-pc/5755a2e3-1acb-4910-a7c9-b75fdb43ddf3 .  Gregkaye (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - here is another (tech blog) source, in French from a reliable publication. . The Wajam talk page is a mess - a number of undisclosed COI company editors who don't appear to have been blocked, people ranting about the stealth install, not much constructive discussion of the content. (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)




 * either keep or salt. I came across the page and found it useful when I got hit with a stealth install of Wajam. So I found the page useful, but I'm no stranger to AfD and know that is not a valid keep argument. And I know it'll be a pain to admin if you keep it, since the company has been very persistent in interfering with this article. So if you guys decide to delete, I'm okay with that, but I'd strongly suggest a salt to ensure it doesn't come back as corporate spam again. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete-- After a review of this article; searching through their references and looking at the magnitude of information that continually refers to this companies product as Malware, I find it hard for us to be able to keep this article in a place of WP:Neutrality. Seems that the argument that has been going on for some years now has created a wikipedia ghost (The subject themselves) that comes out to scare editors away should they try to make constructive contributions to the article. It is apparent that we have an blatant WP:COI when the company or its representatives are reverting things to paint the company in a better light despite the overwhelming evidence that the article is clearly  WP:Spam. However, I will state for the record that the powers at be here in the WP:AfD may want to keep the article and WP:Salt it so the company or it's representatives cannot edit it. The reason for my statement is that with as many complaints that exist, this article could help someone to steer clear or uninstall this unwanted product should they come in contact with it. I did not vote to keep the article using that stance because I understand that wikipedia is not here to be a "how to" book, but rather to offer encyclopedic information on the company. Yet, good, bad or indifferent it is obvious that this article has issues that are not going to end should we allow the article to remain without some form of intervention by a diligent wikipedia administrator!--Canyouhearmenow 12:12, 10 July 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.