BitDefender – Deletion endorsed without prejudice against creation of a neutral article – trialsanderrors 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BitDefender (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Encyclopedia-worthy and lengthy content that, for reasons unknown, was redirected to the article on its manufacturer SOFTWIN, which is currently a stub. I distinctly recall the article's existence as I have edited on it. I have not found an AFD review, and suspected that it may have been prodded off the 'pedia. kelvSYC 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] BitDefender was deleted for being very predominantly advertising; Bitdefender (no capital "D") was deleted as a redirect to a deleted page, then recreated to redirect to SOFTWIN. Perhaps, instead of deletion, BitDefender could have been stubbed, but it was written in a very POV manner. I don't have any problem if someone wants to create a new NPOV version of BitDefender (and Bitdefender could then be redirected to the new page). Trebor 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as advertising bordering on spam, but without objection to the creation of a new, neutral article. Subject definitely seems notable enough for Wikipedia. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion with no prejudice to recreation. Notable software, but even a stub would be preferable to an advertisement. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Is a PROD review available, as well as its last revision before deletion? I do not believe that, at the point of last working on it, it was advertising beyond what is allowable on Wikipedia (in the sense that the "advertising" is effectively restricted to talking about the existence of the product and its notable aspects). Besides, I had severely worked on the fact that BitDefender is currently the only non-Mac antivirus program that is bundled with a Mac antivirus program (VirusBarrier X4 DP), which was keep-worthy. I think this is good enough to challenge the prod and put it in a formal AFD review. kelvSYC 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article was speedy deleted as spam, not via the PROD process. GRBerry 23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion This article was pure advertising, but this subject is notable. A new, rewritten article should be created. -- Wenli 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I wouldn't mind if a new article is created, nor am I advocating the restoration of the original (although it would make a good starting point). However, the article had many editors working on nontrivial portions of it, and to simply dismiss their work as spam does not seem right. I question whether the original CSD nomination was in bad faith. kelvSYC 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

BitDefender – Deletion endorsed without prejudice against creation of a neutral article – trialsanderrors 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Encyclopedia-worthy and lengthy content that, for reasons unknown, was redirected to the article on its manufacturer SOFTWIN, which is currently a stub. I distinctly recall the article's existence as I have edited on it. I have not found an AFD review, and suspected that it may have been prodded off the 'pedia. kelvSYC 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BitDefender was deleted for being very predominantly advertising; Bitdefender (no capital "D") was deleted as a redirect to a deleted page, then recreated to redirect to SOFTWIN. Perhaps, instead of deletion, BitDefender could have been stubbed, but it was written in a very POV manner. I don't have any problem if someone wants to create a new NPOV version of BitDefender (and Bitdefender could then be redirected to the new page). Trebor 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as advertising bordering on spam, but without objection to the creation of a new, neutral article. Subject definitely seems notable enough for Wikipedia. A ecis^Brievenbus 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no prejudice to recreation. Notable software, but even a stub would be preferable to an advertisement. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is a PROD review available, as well as its last revision before deletion? I do not believe that, at the point of last working on it, it was advertising beyond what is allowable on Wikipedia (in the sense that the "advertising" is effectively restricted to talking about the existence of the product and its notable aspects). Besides, I had severely worked on the fact that BitDefender is currently the only non-Mac antivirus program that is bundled with a Mac antivirus program (VirusBarrier X4 DP), which was keep-worthy. I think this is good enough to challenge the prod and put it in a formal AFD review. kelvSYC 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was speedy deleted as spam, not via the PROD process. GRBerry 23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This article was pure advertising, but this subject is notable. A new, rewritten article should be created. -- Wenli 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't mind if a new article is created, nor am I advocating the restoration of the original (although it would make a good starting point). However, the article had many editors working on nontrivial portions of it, and to simply dismiss their work as spam does not seem right. I question whether the original CSD nomination was in bad faith. kelvSYC 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Conservapedia – Nomination withdrawn by removal. Deletion is already being reviewed. – A ecis^Brievenbus 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Conservapedia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Conservapedia was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, it now gets 200,000 Google hits and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). I believe it is now notable enough for inclusion, and should be restored or unprotected. h2g2bob 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close. Conservapedia is already being discussed, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25#Conservapedia. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oops, very sorry --h2g2bob 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Conservapedia – Nomination withdrawn by removal. Deletion is already being reviewed. – A ecis^Brievenbus 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Conservapedia was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, it now gets 200,000 Google hits and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). I believe it is now notable enough for inclusion, and should be restored or unprotected. h2g2bob 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Conservapedia is already being discussed, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25#Conservapedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, very sorry --h2g2bob 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Findamob – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Findamob (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` i have changed the original artical so that it comlplies with wiki Tommyisnice 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - I saw this before it was deleted. In process speedy of blatant advertising - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - If the revised version didn't qualify as spam, and I believe it still did, then it still would have been a ((db-web)) candidate. A single page 3 newspaper article, no rank on Alexa, 13 google hits for findamob, with a couple concerning EverQuest all adds up to not yet notable. --Onorem 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per Onorem; if not spam, then not notable. Trebor 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Findamob – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

i have changed the original artical so that it comlplies with wiki Tommyisnice 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - I saw this before it was deleted. In process speedy of blatant advertising - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - If the revised version didn't qualify as spam, and I believe it still did, then it still would have been a ((db-web)) candidate. A single page 3 newspaper article, no rank on Alexa, 13 google hits for findamob, with a couple concerning EverQuest all adds up to not yet notable. --Onorem 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Onorem; if not spam, then not notable. Trebor 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.