Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think-adz

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 12:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think-adz

Contested prod. I prodded this on the basis that it is a non-notable piece of spyware, and Wikipedia is not a directory of spyware. (For those who take notice of such things, there are no google news hits, no relevent google groups hits, and most of the relevent web hits are forums where people are discussing how to remove it.) Also, based on the comment left when the prod tag was removed ("No other information sources Think-Adz"[1]) this may be original research. AJR | Talk 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons above. Looks more like a report from some Spyware removal site.--Niroht 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Query Wikipedia may not be a directory of spyware, per se, but it is a directory of information entries. The reason articles do not exist on Google, relating to this software, is that noone has prepared any (and most likely will shortly). The majority of Google hits are indeed forums entries, as that is the only medium the average user has to discuss this software. Thus the Wiki entry to inform others. But if original research cannot be sourced, and there is no information available, how can one inform others?

No idea, but it's not Wikipedia's job to inform people about nonmajor spyware, especially since no one's likely to find it unless clicking random page. --Niroht 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one has prepared a text about this yet and if forums are the only place this is discussed, then there's no reliable sources to cite from, meaning this will fail the [[WP:V|verifiability requirement. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If you cannot source it without original research, then simple, you find some place that's not Wikipedia and inform from there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it's the job of Wikipedia to give information on published material; not original research. And before you suggest that Wikipedia expand its job duties, Wikipedia already has a hard enough time trying to fulfill being an encyclopedia. ColourBurst 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Wikipedia isn't an anti-spyware or anti-virus database. After all, how many people immediately look up a virus on Wikipedia after they've been infected? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JIP | Talk 07:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable - only 827 hits on google Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. · XP · 05:47, 1 October 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.