Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacKeeper (2nd nomination)

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. Article needs a proper cleanup. A Train^talk 08:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacKeeper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - (copied from the talk page): I don't quite understand how this article is notable. It doesn't match the criterion in WP: Notability (software), as it lacks significant independent interest outside of thinkpieces generated in reference to the lawsuit. I can see an argument made that the lawsuit itself constitutes notability, but beyond that I'm doubtful. Further, there is a very specific style-guide for this sort of page discussed in the above link, which this article fails to adhere to. At the very least, the section on 'Features' is entirely spurious, as wikipedia is not the manual for MacKeeper, and dips into territory forbidden in WP: Spam. Articles on paid software need to work hard to not break WP: NPOV, and the "Features" section and the semi-section on the "Security Research Center" (which I have deleted - it's simply free advertising and the section is barely comprehensible in english) are both violations of this. Regardless, until these issues are resolved - that is, the page undergoes heavy rewrites and citations can be found to justify its existence, I'd like to move for it's deletion. William Of Orange (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Of Orange (talk • contribs)
Keep The article may need work (I'm not really a fan of the features element) but the subject is certainly notable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this discussion is closed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the discussion to a separate 2nd nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is notable, however I do recommend better editing in the article itself, as the referenced product is mostly identified as malware, but any references to this are quickly reverted. In its current state, it breaks WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danixdefcon5 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some Reliable, neutral sources that concern this software. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the rationale of BeenAroundAWhile above. Mbridge3000 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could definitely use some cleanup, especially in regards to the sources. A lot of them are not reliable sources at all, but are merely press releases, links to the product's home page and promotional pages. However, there are quite a number of actual reliable sources, such as PC World and Business Insider. So, Keep, but definitely cleanup the poor sources and promotional material. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.