- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
REVE Antivirus
- REVE Antivirus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is the fourth time it has been recreated so I am sending this to AfD (also technically not eligible for A7). There is nothing which indicates that this software is notable (nor any credible claim of significance). Coverage is restricted to slightly modified press releases such as this. We have many anti-virus software. What makes this notable? When I couldn't find evidence for notability, I wondered if it is at least popular. However the Facebook page has 427 likes which indicates a very low level of popularity. I do not see any reason why we should keep an article about a non-notable software product. WP:NOTPROMO applies here as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, basically per nom - note also that the "PR Newswire" reference is from a site specifically dedicated to publishing press releases. I would advocate for WP:SALT if the creator recreates, but none tried to engage them yet except via CSD boilerplate notices, so not yet.
- @ Wrtamal.bd: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The article "REVE antivirus" will most likely be deleted again, unless you can provide reliable sources demonstrating the " notability" of the subject (which roughly means that it has been the subject of attention of independent reviews). Notice however that if those sources do not exist, it is not a problem that editing will fix. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. and salt, as specified above. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Additionally, @ Wrtamal.bd:, if you have a potential WP:COI with the subject of this article, you should really declare it. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 20:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - After searching for usable references and failing to find even one, I must agree with LemonGirl942 that it is not notable and thus fails the guideline. DeVerm ( talk) 21:46, 16 June 2016 (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 delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
REVE Antivirus
- REVE Antivirus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is the fourth time it has been recreated so I am sending this to AfD (also technically not eligible for A7). There is nothing which indicates that this software is notable (nor any credible claim of significance). Coverage is restricted to slightly modified press releases such as this. We have many anti-virus software. What makes this notable? When I couldn't find evidence for notability, I wondered if it is at least popular. However the Facebook page has 427 likes which indicates a very low level of popularity. I do not see any reason why we should keep an article about a non-notable software product. WP:NOTPROMO applies here as well. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, basically per nom - note also that the "PR Newswire" reference is from a site specifically dedicated to publishing press releases. I would advocate for WP:SALT if the creator recreates, but none tried to engage them yet except via CSD boilerplate notices, so not yet.
- @ Wrtamal.bd: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The article "REVE antivirus" will most likely be deleted again, unless you can provide reliable sources demonstrating the " notability" of the subject (which roughly means that it has been the subject of attention of independent reviews). Notice however that if those sources do not exist, it is not a problem that editing will fix. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. and salt, as specified above. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Additionally, @ Wrtamal.bd:, if you have a potential WP:COI with the subject of this article, you should really declare it. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 20:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - After searching for usable references and failing to find even one, I must agree with LemonGirl942 that it is not notable and thus fails the guideline. DeVerm ( talk) 21:46, 16 June 2016 (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.