233:
that they are causing. It does not necessarily mean the company is non-notable however. RegCure is probably the best selling registry cleaner on-line right now. Or at least the most advertised. On the other hand, it is most likely someone advertising the product that has created this page. Many people will probably try to use wikipedia as a reference for the claims of awards being won being true. It could have easily been written by promoters of the product in order to create sales. We are talking about people who put up websites that advertise the product. Their own advertisement serves as a reference for the article in accordance with wikipedia's policy. It will be hard to decide how to deal with problems such as this because there is a genuine need for an article on this company.
259:: In that case, documenting these issues in the Knowledge article would be a useful response to any attempt to exploit Knowledge for marketing purposes. If ParetoLogic is among those who have distributed malware disguised as anti-malware utilities, I would think this would be well documented by their legitimate competitors, or better, in the IT press. --
293:: Since my last edit here, I've gone and whacked away more marketing language in the article, including two entire sections. Maybe that will help. The company is notable, sure, but there were too many inflated claims, links to product reviews, and a list of awards that are of no significance outside British Columbia. I'll keep watching the article. --
148:
What proof do you have that the "as advertised at
Knowledge" page is owned by ParetoLogic? As far as I can see, that page is at getview.net, and could be a scam with nothing to do with this company, but using one of their products as bait. Note the amateurish style of the page, then read the business
278:
of it, but that's not the same thing. Presumably, they've got a system in place that has made it painfully easy to exploit for gain, but that's still not quite the same thing. Especially if we can't get anything citable. The basis for the AfDs lies in notability and the marketeering nature of the
232:
Just an FYI they are a member of an affiliate directory meaning anyone can get paid for traffic/conversions. This probably makes them a very popular target for spyware and malware as their authors are able to make commissions if they can drive their victims to sign up for the "cure" to the problem
183:
The vast majority of google references to their products appear to be bogus downloads, scam "warning" articles and obscure forum posts. They appear to be very active targets of the malware industry - not surprising given the nature of their products - so it would be best to keep the discussion here
193:
I've tried to keep my AfDs on here on the basis of notability and use of
Knowledge for advertising. While I do think they're gray at best, I don't have anything but my experiences to show for it. The near-impossibility of getting credible articles, along with the sheer advertising nature of the
184:
and on the other AfDs to questions of notability. From what I can gather, they are legitimate (i.e. not malware) but their product names are spoofed actively all over the internet, so let's keep claims of "malware" and "dubious bonafides" out of it. Legal matters being what they are.
173:
I didn't add that claim, and thanks to the firewall at work, can't check either site until I get home. I found it amusing to have spotted the addition, but it wasn't the basis for adding AfDs to the rest of the company's legacy.
149:
awards given to ParetoLogic on their article. You could very easily be making libellous claims here - the claims on the RegCure article are also unsourced other than a single page at getview.net.
125:
321:
212:. I don't doubt that someone at the company probably started this article, but that doesn't mean it's not a notable subject. I removed some marketroid phrasing. --
133:
240:
98:
93:
17:
102:
274:
Erm, we don't really have any concrete proof that ParetoLogic themselves are distributing rogue software. Some of us are
85:
51:
356:
36:
355:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
244:
337:
303:
283:
269:
248:
222:
198:
188:
178:
168:
153:
139:
67:
89:
236:
164:
appears to be the official RegCure page, not the getview.net one. Notice the differences in quality.
280:
195:
175:
136:
81:
73:
185:
165:
150:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
333:
299:
265:
218:
58:
119:
329:
295:
261:
214:
132:
Non-notable company that uses
Knowledge as a way to advertise. See
349:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
161:
115:
111:
107:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
359:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
194:articles, provides enough reason as it is. -
320:: This debate has been included in the
134:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/RegCure
279:company and its products' articles.
7:
322:list of Software-related deletions
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
338:04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
304:03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
284:03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
270:03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
249:16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
68:01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
223:22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
199:23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
189:23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
179:22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
169:21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
154:21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
140:19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
376:
352:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
340:
325:
251:
239:comment added by
63:
367:
354:
336:
326:
316:
302:
268:
234:
221:
123:
105:
65:
61:
57:
54:
34:
375:
374:
370:
369:
368:
366:
365:
364:
363:
357:deletion review
350:
328:
294:
260:
213:
96:
80:
77:
64:
59:
52:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
373:
371:
362:
361:
344:
342:
341:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
253:
252:
226:
225:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
156:
130:
129:
76:
71:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
372:
360:
358:
353:
347:
346:
345:
339:
335:
331:
323:
319:
315:
314:
305:
301:
297:
292:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
277:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
258:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:67.64.159.141
238:
231:
228:
227:
224:
220:
216:
211:
208:
200:
197:
192:
191:
190:
187:
182:
181:
180:
177:
172:
171:
170:
167:
163:
160:
157:
155:
152:
147:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
135:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
62:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
351:
348:
343:
317:
290:
275:
256:
229:
209:
186:Thomjakobsen
166:Thomjakobsen
158:
151:Thomjakobsen
145:
131:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
235:—Preceding
82:ParetoLogic
74:ParetoLogic
281:Bahustard
276:convinced
196:Bahustard
176:Bahustard
137:Bahustard
237:unsigned
126:View log
291:Comment
257:Comment
230:Comment
159:Comment
146:Comment
99:protect
94:history
334:Alarob
332:alias
330:Rob C.
300:Alarob
298:alias
296:Rob C.
266:Alarob
264:alias
262:Rob C.
219:Alarob
217:alias
215:Rob C.
103:delete
60:(talk)
120:views
112:watch
108:links
53:Maxim
16:<
318:Note
245:talk
210:Keep
162:This
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
46:Keep
324:.
124:– (
247:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
48:.
327:—
243:(
174:-
128:)
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.