- 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) Sam Sailor 12:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Orbit Downloader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only known for the controversy which generated some routine coverage but nothing significant. wumbolo ^^^ 09:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
With this reason you may want to tag all Download managers listed via Template:Download managers for deletion (far less notable). Orbit downloader is actually notable for originally being a good software that was taken over by some unknown who transformend it into adware/spyware with a hidden option to use it for DDoS attacks. This is a clear Keep for me. -- Denniss ( talk) 10:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ Denniss: do you have any sources for it being originally notable as a good software? And don't worry; I'm going through that template and judging the notability of each download manager with an objective viewpoint. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep Sketchy towards
WP:GNG however I am not convinced by the nominators explanation for deletion.
Govvy (
talk)
15:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- All reliable sources basically just say what CNET reported and bring nothing else to the table. And the references in the article are mostly unreliable. wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets
WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple
independent
reliable sources.
- Here are several sources:
- — Newslinger talk 03:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Download.com is an Internet download directory website, so I'm unsure of its reliability, even though it's a part of CNET. The other two sources rely entirely on ESET press releases. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep there's several sources. Re the poor sourcing - I would have thought download sites are an appropriate venue for sources for download managers - unconvinced by nom. Widefox; talk 17:36, 16 September 2018 (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.
- 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) Sam Sailor 12:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Orbit Downloader ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only known for the controversy which generated some routine coverage but nothing significant. wumbolo ^^^ 09:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
With this reason you may want to tag all Download managers listed via Template:Download managers for deletion (far less notable). Orbit downloader is actually notable for originally being a good software that was taken over by some unknown who transformend it into adware/spyware with a hidden option to use it for DDoS attacks. This is a clear Keep for me. -- Denniss ( talk) 10:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ Denniss: do you have any sources for it being originally notable as a good software? And don't worry; I'm going through that template and judging the notability of each download manager with an objective viewpoint. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep Sketchy towards
WP:GNG however I am not convinced by the nominators explanation for deletion.
Govvy (
talk)
15:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- All reliable sources basically just say what CNET reported and bring nothing else to the table. And the references in the article are mostly unreliable. wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets
WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple
independent
reliable sources.
- Here are several sources:
- — Newslinger talk 03:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Download.com is an Internet download directory website, so I'm unsure of its reliability, even though it's a part of CNET. The other two sources rely entirely on ESET press releases. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep there's several sources. Re the poor sourcing - I would have thought download sites are an appropriate venue for sources for download managers - unconvinced by nom. Widefox; talk 17:36, 16 September 2018 (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.