Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CA Anti-Spyware
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CA Anti-Spyware[edit]
- CA Anti-Spyware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
completely fails to show any semblance of notability, with no evidence it passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (changed from
Merge to CA Technologies, and Redirect). I've added a dozen references from high-quality reliable sources (Infoworld, Computerworld, PC magazine and a couple of books), and could easily add a dozen more, as there are actually numerous articles which review the product in detail, or describe the acquisition by CA and subsequent renaming. Clicking on "find sources-News" above, yields over 80 such articles, in high quality venues such as ABC News, CNET, Information Week, PC Magazine and many others. The product itself is notable as one of the first anti-malware tools.That said, now that it is part of CA, it would be ok to merge this information there, and redirect both this and PestPatrol to CA Technologies.HupHollandHup (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - of note, this is the 2nd AfD for this article, the first one was here - 10 "Keep"s, not a single Delete other than the nom. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one being in 2005, filled with votes/comments which would now be seen as ridiculous and inane. Since you're obviously so concerned about this poor article's wellbeing, to the point where you've removed PRODs despite not actually doing what it says on the box and fixing the problems, would you mind providing these high-quality sources? Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the comments from the last AfD highlighted the fact that this is a notable product, has nearly a million ghits, and that with cleanup, a decent article could be had. These are arguments grounded in policy which work as well today. The Prod box which I removed says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." -which is exactly what I did - I removed it, explaining that a merge and redirect would be preferable. I also added references and otherwise cleaned up the article by removing red links and wikilinking others. You, OTOH, re-added a removed Prod, which is against policy, didn't bother to look for sources before going to AfD which is what the guide to deletion recommends, and are now trying to personalize this AfD. I would strongly caution you against doing that, because not only does it not make your arguments any stronger, it pisses me off. And when I'm pissed off, I can be as unpleasant as you are, believe me. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I'm not trying to be unpleasant, 2) thank you for the threats, and 3) I apologise for the re-added prod, I didn't realise (stupid as it sounds) that one had been added before). Lets look at the last AfD, shall we? One raw vote simply containing the word "Keep". "A significant program, and the article is not without merit. File on cleanup for NPOV.", which isn't really a rationale so much as a dust-jacket blurb. "Keep This gets 805,000 Google hits!", when google hits are not evidence. "Keep. I have this program here at work. Absolutely fantastic. It works in real time blocking spyware and gives an audible notice that it's working". Two more raw keep votes, and another OH MY GOD GOOGLE HITS! vote (and yes, I'm calling them votes because that's what they were). The last AfD did not in any way establish or provide evidence that it is a notable program, google hits are irrelevant, and with cleanup, a copy could be printed off, mulched and turned into adequate toilet paper.
- Of the five sources we currently have in the article (this is after you've improved it) we have this, which covers the purchase of CA Anti-Spyware's previous developer and gives so little coverage to Anti-Spyware it wouldn't know the term significant coverage if it bit it on the arse, this, which is not only covering the previous version of this software but doing so in a completely tangential way, this, again, covering the company and purchase, very briefly touching on the product, this, where somebody at the company is providing a useful soundbite and this, which is a primary source, for crying out loud. Significant coverage in third party sources, please. Ironholds (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The distinction you are drawing between the "previous developer" or the "previous version" is meaningless. This is the same product, renamed after an acquisition, and the previous product name redirects to this article. The role the product played in exposing Facebook's "spying" is dominant enough to warrant mention in the Facebook Beacon article, so your characterization of an article highlighting this fact as a "soundbite" is inaccurate, to say the least. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But again, significant coverage. None of those sources are directly about the subject (which isn't essential) and none of them give more than a couple of lines about it (which is). Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cited and linked to half a dozen detailed product reviews. There are dozens more which you can eaisly find by clicking on "find sources", above. HupHollandHup (talk)
- But again, significant coverage. None of those sources are directly about the subject (which isn't essential) and none of them give more than a couple of lines about it (which is). Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The distinction you are drawing between the "previous developer" or the "previous version" is meaningless. This is the same product, renamed after an acquisition, and the previous product name redirects to this article. The role the product played in exposing Facebook's "spying" is dominant enough to warrant mention in the Facebook Beacon article, so your characterization of an article highlighting this fact as a "soundbite" is inaccurate, to say the least. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the comments from the last AfD highlighted the fact that this is a notable product, has nearly a million ghits, and that with cleanup, a decent article could be had. These are arguments grounded in policy which work as well today. The Prod box which I removed says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." -which is exactly what I did - I removed it, explaining that a merge and redirect would be preferable. I also added references and otherwise cleaned up the article by removing red links and wikilinking others. You, OTOH, re-added a removed Prod, which is against policy, didn't bother to look for sources before going to AfD which is what the guide to deletion recommends, and are now trying to personalize this AfD. I would strongly caution you against doing that, because not only does it not make your arguments any stronger, it pisses me off. And when I'm pissed off, I can be as unpleasant as you are, believe me. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one being in 2005, filled with votes/comments which would now be seen as ridiculous and inane. Since you're obviously so concerned about this poor article's wellbeing, to the point where you've removed PRODs despite not actually doing what it says on the box and fixing the problems, would you mind providing these high-quality sources? Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to CA Technologies. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the sourcing in the article indicates that this has sufficient coverage to exist as a standalone article. Notability is established. - Whpq (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Work done since the AFD was initiated appear to have resolved any notability issues.--PinkBull 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Excellent improvement work makes this worth keeping now. Passes WP:GNG by some margin. Disappointing that it took two AfDs to get there though. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2010 (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.