411:
pays "sources" to review the non-free version, which might not be scareware. It is quite interesting how the user
Jarkeld protects a version of an article that promotes malware. I personally think, articles like these are quite bad for the reputation of Knowledge (XXG).Babeuf 10:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
435:
The problem with your opinion is that you can't deliver reliable sources on that. I am not protecting a version of an article that promotes malware: either produce sources that it is malware or move on. All I am doing is keeping unsourced negative information out of the article. Someone who is better
410:
Unfortunately, Jarkeld did not tell us why this software should be relevant. The problem is that this article promotes a software, that is malware, at least in its free version. There seems to be no reliable sources of this fact, probably because this software is not important enough and this company
394:
but rewrite. It has several reliable third party sources, it just needs to be rewritten as less of an advertisement. If people have reliable sources about the critique they are welcome to use them in the article. As it stands no-one posting the negative information has been able to source it
252:
It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert
436:
at writing can clean up the promotional tone. As for notability: the software has been reviewed and rated by several sites/magazines. Do you have sources that prove that they are paid for writing up positive reviews? If not: move on. What
169:
246:
this criterion. There are no printed sources and the positive reviews are not reliable written by independent publishers, considering there is a lot of critique and these reviews keep dead quiet about it.
454:
I do not think the debates about the quality or the personal discussion belong here (Yes, I kind of started them. We can discuss them somewhere else, if you want to). Back to topic: Why is this software
225:
The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
238:
The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
122:
291:
163:
212:
The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. (...)
129:
17:
57:
95:
90:
427:
280:
184:
99:
493:
40:
151:
82:
415:
380:
has been written in a form of some spam advertisement for endorsement and self promotion of their product.
268:
145:
489:
61:
36:
468:
423:
276:
141:
440:
interesting is that you seem to have come out of retirement just to nominate StopZilla for deletion.
472:
449:
404:
384:
366:
335:
303:
86:
64:
177:
347:
314:
464:
419:
272:
191:
53:
377:
78:
70:
445:
400:
299:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
488:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
381:
157:
362:
441:
396:
295:
200:
The software does meet the inclusion criteria Babeuf 09:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
116:
350:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
317:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
329:
358:
261:
this criterion. The sources do not show the significance of STOPZilla.
220:
this criterion. The sources do not show the significance of STOPZilla.
482:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
112:
108:
104:
176:
357:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
324:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
190:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
496:). No further edits should be made to this page.
459:? Where are the reliable sources that show its
376:I highly recommend this article for deletion.
292:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
290:Note: This debate has been included in the
289:
264:--Babeuf 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
304:20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
513:
473:21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
450:10:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
405:09:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
385:23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
367:02:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
65:20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
336:04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
485:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
229:STOPZilla definitely
48:The result was
432:
418:comment added by
387:
369:
338:
306:
285:
271:comment added by
58:non-admin closure
504:
487:
431:
412:
375:
356:
352:
334:
332:
328:
323:
319:
284:
265:
233:this criterion.
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
34:
512:
511:
507:
506:
505:
503:
502:
501:
500:
494:deletion review
483:
413:
345:
330:
326:
325:
312:
266:
209:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
510:
508:
499:
498:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
389:
388:
372:
371:
370:
354:
353:
342:
341:
340:
339:
321:
320:
309:
308:
307:
250:
236:
223:
208:
205:
203:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
509:
497:
495:
491:
486:
480:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
439:
434:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
409:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
393:
386:
383:
379:
374:
373:
368:
364:
360:
355:
351:
349:
344:
343:
337:
333:
322:
318:
316:
311:
310:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
262:
260:
259:does not meet
255:
254:
248:
245:
244:does not meet
240:
239:
234:
232:
231:does not meet
227:
226:
221:
219:
218:does not meet
214:
213:
206:
204:
201:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
484:
481:
461:significance
460:
456:
437:
414:— Preceding
391:
390:
346:
313:
267:— Preceding
263:
258:
256:
251:
249:
243:
241:
237:
235:
230:
228:
224:
222:
217:
215:
211:
210:
202:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
62:NorthAmerica
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
457:significant
253:notability.
164:free images
395:reliably.
382:Burbank.63
257:STOPZilla
242:STOPZilla
216:STOPZilla
490:talk page
378:STOPzilla
296:• Gene93k
79:STOPzilla
71:STOPzilla
37:talk page
492:or in a
428:contribs
416:unsigned
348:Relisted
315:Relisted
281:contribs
269:unsigned
207:Criteria
123:View log
54:WP:NPASR
39:or in a
442:Jarkeld
397:Jarkeld
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
465:Babeuf
420:Babeuf
273:Babeuf
142:Google
100:delete
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
469:talk
446:talk
424:talk
401:talk
392:Keep
363:talk
327:czar
300:talk
277:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
56:). (
359:Mz7
192:TWL
121:– (
52:. (
471:)
463:?
448:)
438:is
430:)
426:•
403:)
365:)
302:)
294:.
283:)
279:•
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
60:)
467:(
444:(
422:(
399:(
361:(
331:♔
298:(
275:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.