Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratware

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 merge to Spam (electronic). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ratware[edit]

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

Does not even have one source. A neologism. Do I need to mention that it fails to comply with Wikipedia General Notability Guideline? Fleet Command (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spam (electronic). The term does seem like a neologism, but it is being used in the anti-spam community. (A few examples: [1][2][3]). Considering the term is being used, and people would likely search for it, merging seems like a better option than straight-out deletion. Besides redirects are cheap. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proceed with merger per WP:SNOW. However, take note that you need reliable sources. Should you fail to supply this necessity, this material may still be challenged and deleted even after merger. Fleet Command (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is essentially a definition of a term, and I have just provided above three references to its use. I do not believe reliable sources would be a problem in this merger. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. Have fun merging it. Fleet Command (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per parent5446 until more content is created. Kasaalan (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Per X's statement Fleet Command (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If the term becomes more common and distinct from spamming then it will warrant its own article At the moment, it doesn't. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it still will not. WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICTIONARY must still be taken into consideration. But a merger is OK. Fleet Command (talk) 12:36, 18 July 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.