Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matousec

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matousec

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

References used in the article either don't cover the subject or are merely passing mentions. Unable to locate any additional reliable sources which cover the subject. There are a few forum threads discussing the merits of the website's reviews, but otherwise there's nothing. Elaenia (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I've been aware of Matousec software firewall test about about 10 years, because I found it when I first started looking for a replacement for Norton Internet Security months before Windows Vista was released. Their test is kind of unique. I'm kind of amazed that more people aren't aware of their Windows software firewall test, but I think it comes down to this group not flooding the internet with spam links like some groups do. I found a link in a few minutes of searching. I agree this article need improvement, especially better references, but it shouldn't be deleted. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website you've cited as an indicator of notability doesn't appear to fit the guidelines for being a reliable source. Looking at links to it on Wikipedia, it seems to be mostly a spam blog constantly outputting articles along the lines of "best MP3 player software", "best free file archiver", etc. typical blog spam. In terms of coverage by reliable sources, I've been unable to find any despite extensive searching. There are a few passing mentions, but nothing covering the topic in-depth. Elaenia (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as however sourced and informative this article may be, it's still questionably better and I'm not finding anything convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are low quality. I went looking for some better quality references and couldn't find any. (The closest I could find was a Masters Thesis; I don't think Masters Thesis generally count as RS though.) SJK (talk) 02:54, 26 March 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.