Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacKeeper

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

MacKeeper

MacKeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete - This article contains some content that is written totally like an advertisement. Even though when people searches about MacKeeper they find a Wikipedia page about product, which create an good impact and anybody can be influenced to download the software/app. But no body should actually download it, as discussed and stated by biggest platforms, such as - iMore, etc. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is an absolutely frivolous request. The subject is notable and is cited.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

" Keep. Not only because I use it myself, but also because it is a Notable product as witnessed by all the Web articles about it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable for a standalone article as per WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT, many reviews - see article. Also, see WP:ATD - editing is almost always preferable to deletion or stubification. Esquivalience ^t 15:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• keep how can you nominate it?C E (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - as above, extensively referenced, clearly notable software. Misguided nomination.Dialectric (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Delete - (copied from the talk page): I don't quite understand how this article is notable. It doesn't match the criterion in WP: Notability (software), as it lacks significant independent interest outside of thinkpieces generated in reference to the lawsuit. I can see an argument made that the lawsuit itself constitutes notability, but beyond that I'm doubtful. Further, there is a very specific style-guide for this sort of page discussed in the above link, which this article fails to adhere to. At the very least, the section on 'Features' is entirely spurious, as wikipedia is not the manual for MacKeeper, and dips into territory forbidden in WP: Spam. Articles on paid software need to work hard to not break WP: NPOV, and the "Features" section and the semi-section on the "Security Research Center" (which I have deleted - it's simply free advertising and the section is barely comprehensible in english) are both violations of this. Regardless, until these issues are resolved - that is, the page undergoes heavy rewrites and citations can be found to justify its existence, I'd like to move for it's deletion. William Of Orange (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Of Orange (talk • contribs)

• Keep The article may need work (I'm not really a fan of the features element) but the subject is certainly notable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion is closed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)