Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brothersoft.com

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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brothersoft.com

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

No notability -- fails WP:GNG, in particular WP:WEB. I cannot find additional significant secondary reliable coverage beyond directory entries, rankings, visitor stats. Only review I found is borderline-reliable TopTenReviews. Other hits are either blog entries and unreliable or seem promotional in nature and give no info on history/impact/reception/awards, which is what WP:WEB is about. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I was hoping to find some articles about this site because it comes up so often when doing google searches. However any search for "brothersoft" just gives hundreds of links from the site itself. I would be surprised if no one had ever covered it. I do think it is a malware risk, but without any citable sources we can't just say that. My preference is to cover the site and the risks, but barring that deletion is the only acceptable route. Colincbn (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] to search excluding their own domain. 11:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Wikipedia:N. The site received no media coverage and has to certainly be malware considering all the pages have a route to that website. It doesn't help that all the site advetises is "Free MAC download" and requires the customer to enter their former email account. Wikipedia is certainly NOT a place for advertisement SwisterTwister (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2011 (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.