Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STOPzilla

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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STOPzilla

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The software does meet the inclusion criteria Babeuf 09:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. (...)

STOPZilla does not meet this criterion. The sources do not show the significance of STOPZilla.

The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.

STOPZilla definitely does not meet this criterion.

The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

STOPZilla does not meet this criterion. There are no printed sources and the positive reviews are not reliable written by independent publishers, considering there is a lot of critique and these reviews keep dead quiet about it.

It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability.

STOPZilla does not meet this criterion. The sources do not show the significance of STOPZilla.

--Babeuf 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babeuf (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend this article for deletion. STOPzilla has been written in a form of some spam advertisement for endorsement and self promotion of their product. Burbank.63 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. It has several reliable third party sources, it just needs to be rewritten as less of an advertisement. If people have reliable sources about the critique they are welcome to use them in the article. As it stands no-one posting the negative information has been able to source it reliably. Jarkeld (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jarkeld did not tell us why this software should be relevant. The problem is that this article promotes a software, that is malware, at least in its free version. There seems to be no reliable sources of this fact, probably because this software is not important enough and this company pays "sources" to review the non-free version, which might not be scareware. It is quite interesting how the user Jarkeld protects a version of an article that promotes malware. I personally think, articles like these are quite bad for the reputation of Wikipedia.Babeuf 10:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babeuf (talk • contribs)

The problem with your opinion is that you can't deliver reliable sources on that. I am not protecting a version of an article that promotes malware: either produce sources that it is malware or move on. All I am doing is keeping unsourced negative information out of the article. Someone who is better at writing can clean up the promotional tone. As for notability: the software has been reviewed and rated by several sites/magazines. Do you have sources that prove that they are paid for writing up positive reviews? If not: move on. What is interesting is that you seem to have come out of retirement just to nominate StopZilla for deletion. Jarkeld (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the debates about the quality or the personal discussion belong here (Yes, I kind of started them. We can discuss them somewhere else, if you want to). Back to topic: Why is this software significant? Where are the reliable sources that show its significance? Babeuf (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.