Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SearchLock

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SearchLock

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

Not notable under WP:GNG. Not an important or widely covered browser extension, no outside sources found after a reasonably thorough search. The extension is also misrepresented in the article: it's also an ad-serving platform, thus Google only brings up "how to remove SearchLock virus" results. Unlikely to be malicious but it's worth waiting to create this article until the product is notable. Article creator de-PRODed the article without addressing issues on talk page. Wieldthespade (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is said that "Not an important or widely covered browser extension" but there are more than 357,000 weekly active users as reported by the Google Chrome Web Store [1]. And this is also wrong that, "it's also an ad-serving platform" becasue it is NOT an ad serving platform any more than DuckDuckGo, Google, or Bing are ad serving platforms. The extension effectively sets SearchLock as the users' primary search engine and monetizes through search ads, nothing else. In addition, all of the articles promoting SearchLock as a virus or ad serving platform are promoting paid antivirus software for which the blog owners earn a commission when purchased. Some of these blogs even do the same thing to DuckDuckGo (a well respected extension) in order to generate commissions..for instance DuckDuckGo or Remove DuckDuckGo etc. Thank you. Prasenjitmouri (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary source coverage, and the article is promotional to boot. It's very close to being speedy for spam. Agtx (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be trimmed if you think the tone/wordings are promotional. Such extensions like LibX, Lucifox, DeeperWeb etc. usually do not get wide coverage except their popularity in the browser's page.Prasenjitmouri (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blogs, press releases and app store listings do not show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here for advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable web content/computer programme/etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources in the references, notability has not been established, content is promotional. Scr★pIron^IV 14:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence in the references that this is a notable product. Deli nk (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2015 (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.