Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symantec Endpoint Protection (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Symantec Endpoint Protection[edit]

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

Nominating this for deletion on behalf of User:WikiGopi per request on my talk page. This is an administrative action only, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur, this product defined the AV standard for many years and in some fields still does. I worked in the industry from many years myself and I found this article to be quite useful in keeping track of the latest releases, since their website often changes and is no good in keeping track of past released versions and dates. I wish the features section of this article could be more detailed and how the product evolved over the years, e.g. being the first that introduced cloud based services if I remember correctly. This article had been flagged being written like an advertisement - which I think it currently is NOT - I myself was afraid adding more detailed information in the features section would put it over the edge. I think this flag should be removed not detaining interested people from adding more in-depth information upon their field of expertise. Again, I hope article will be kept and improved in the future.
Keep. This product is/was for many years THE standard corporate PC antivirus software. As such it has at least tens of millions of users, and a great deal of review and criticism in industry-specific reliable sources. It is definitely notable. It isn't any good, but it it's definitely notable. Thparkth (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - once notable, always thus. Still used by some people. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would vote keep, but the article is indeed bad (too heavy reliance on primary sources). Plenty of reliable sources... outside the article. Pavlor (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was rubbish but very widely-used rubbish. A little sourcing improvement needed, but no reason to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I would vote delete, the article contains sources that totally link to their own domains, No proper sources available for citation. Recently i have requested to remove McAfee Endpoint protection, which is also the product that intend to promote product through wiki. The following article is removed under the same circumstances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAfee_Endpoint_Protection. I strongly recommend to delte the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aicte.david (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aicte.david: To be fair, there are well refrenced parts (well, one section: Security Concerns and Controversies). In some cases even primary sources are useable (eg. for exact release informations of various versions). However, features, reception etc. should be referenced by RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: I was already requested this page for deletion few days ago & it is reverted without update, personally i use to search & update citations for article. simply, i don't usually update comment for deletion without proper research. Through my analysis i don't even find good citation resources for the version they keep adding it here. The article itself shows that it clearly intend to promote product. I really don't know the reason why people still asking to keep this article.

@Aicte.david: There are rules for deletion of articles, you did some mistake when nominating, so your edit was reverted and this article was nominated for deletion by another user. Articles are kept, if their subject is notable. Notability can be proven by reliable sources. As I wrote above, there are many reliable sources about this product, but not in the article itself. Promotional language in Wikipedia articles certainly is a problem, but this can be solved by rewording/deleting most offensive parts. Speaking about rules... you should sign your posts (eg. reply to notification will not work without signature, I think). Pavlor (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: Do you know the reason why it is nominated for deletion few years ago? Only Symantec promoter & product lovers are asked to keep this article & few people who comment to keep the article on that day are no longer in wiki now. Just they comment and vanish while the article request for deletion. I know the article won't get deleted from here, since it is been protected by Symantec lovers. However, as a wiki spam cleaner im engaging here to share my view/point. Simply, i am not going to gain anything out of it. (Aicte.david (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

@Aicte.david: Please, don´t label other users. Everybody has own idea what belongs to Wikipedia (although we all cite the same policies...). You yourself can improve this article. Eg. use its talkpage, mention your concerns and propose solution (remove parts with weak sources). If you gain consensus for you intentions, use mop and clean the article. Pavlor (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2016 (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.