Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wssecure

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 delete, the existence of another article on a related subject is not a reason to keep this one, or evidence that we're biased in favor of the other. Opabinia regalis 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wssecure

Wssecure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Only 158 Google hits ^{[Check Google hits]}, most of which seem to be rather trivial links from other pages or listings at download sites. Several different anons and apparent single purpose accounts have been created to get first an external link, then a wikilink, to info about this software in Spyware. They are constantly reverted without explanation as to why this is important, often from a new account. For this reason I do not consider this article to have been created in good faith. Daniel Case 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Programs like HijackThis are still promoted by sites like download.com and through mass advertisements. But other free software that may not have thousands of Google hits, also need attention so that they can be useful to the general public. Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be thought as anything useful and is only meant for advertisements of commercial software. FSF is much better. - Fsf 10:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of software at all. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and it keeps articles of commercial software like HijackThis that claim to be from trusted sources. Well, all Wikipedians are retarded and they and the Wikipedia are not worth the trouble.

Fsf 10:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I think this will persuade Fsf to come back, and/or change his/her mind, but HijackThis is here because it's not only popular but notable. People post logs from it all the time on discussion fora to help diagnose malware infections and get knowledgeable help. Whereas I don't see anything similar for this.

Hope you consider visiting the project pages before giving any negative remarks about the usefulness of the product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

I didn't make any negative remarks about the product. I just said an article about it wasn't justified at this point in time.

And when it comes to negative remarks. I would suggest anyone who says we're all retards is hardly in a position to cast stones. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And, as always, saying "this needs attention" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia and pretty much guarantees the article will be deleted. Daniel Case 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A new program doesnt necessarily mean that it is not notable and programs from a company like DivX are always trusted. Anyways ,.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

True, we have plenty of articles about, say, upcoming video games. But they're already the subject of non-trivial news coverage before being released.

• Delete. It's a substub and there are no verifiable third party sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• An article called Spyware Doctor is there which is commercial $29.95 per year but Wikipedia deletes free software. This is really a shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

Fsf 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOT? We're not discriminating against free software. This article was posted as a promotional effort which is not what Wikipedia is for and it lacks the basic information to be called an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The article was categorized as a Wikipedia:Stub and therefore it might lack information to be called an article from the definition of Stubs. The article was originally created in an attempt not to promote anything but to let users know about it only through which it can be useful to the general public. It does not redirect users to pages that have ads or any commercial website like in Spyware Doctor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

The Spyware Doctor page does not "redirect" users to a commercial page, either. It merely provides an external link to it should readers wish to download it. Daniel Case 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"The article was originally created in an attempt not to promote anything but to let users know about it". And you call us retards? Just because you're not selling it doesn't mean you weren't trying to direct traffic to the page so people can download it. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, we already have tons of articles on free software. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hope you consider visiting the project pages before giving any negative remarks about the usefulness of the product. You can compare it with the commercial Spyware Doctor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

Again, you're asking people to compare it to a commercial product. And you say you're not promoting it. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant that commercial products like Spyware Doctor are still available on wikipedia.

Fsf 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not available. Wikipedia is not a download site. All we have here are articles about software that's notable for one reason or another. No executables for download. Daniel Case 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you've already got what you want at softpedia.com. Daniel Case 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a different program.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsf (talk • contribs).

Then it's even less notable. Daniel Case 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:SPAM covers this one. Delete B.Wind 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising, also because no notability is claimed or apparent. Sandstein 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant that commercial products like Spyware Doctor are still available on wikipedia. But you can delete it.

• Delete

Fsf 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This looks like a legit program. http://wssecure.sourceforge.net—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiyo o (talk • contribs).

This is only the second edit from this account, ever. Daniel Case 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. –– 30sman 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable software. Mukadderat 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Registered on sourceforge 2006-11-06. NN --Karnesky 21:14, 3 December 2006 (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.