Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNSKong

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNSKong

DNSKong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

disputed PROD for free-ware that makes no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - barring the appearance of non-trivial reliable sources establishing notability. —dgies^t_c 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. Like many "free" products it's a stalking horse for a paid-for version - check out the site. And apart from that there's the utter non-notability. andy 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CSD#A7 applies to companies, not products, and WP:CSD#G11 doesn't seem to apply either. —dgies^t_c 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G11, blatant advertisement. It does so apply. Free does not preclude being advertised. —David Eppstein 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Not Delete - it is not blatant advertising since it is listed on quite a few of the more well-known ad-blocking sites. I have known about the software for quite some time due to to these sources. It is not a "a stalking horse for a paid-for version" since it functions perfectly by itself - I think the paid-for version is intended at a completely different audience (they do not advertise it blatantly - I was not even aware of the second version). --MatthewKarlsen 09:59, 6 July 2007 (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.