Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prey (software)

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 keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prey (software)

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

WP:RS; WP:NOT. The article was created (6 Oct 2009) by a privately held software company’s founder to promote a company product. The creator has no talk page and has made no other contributions. (The company’s headquarters are located outside the jurisdiction of most customers’ courts; the product hopefully contains no malware.) Dervorguilla (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Software has received significant press coverage; article references TechCrunch and LifeHacker, see also[1][2][3][4][5] Most of the arguments in the AfD proposal aren't reasons for deletion: who created the page doesn't affect its notability (the article may be mildly promotional but not so much as to be useless), and nor does what they country they are based in. Are we supposed to refuse to cover any software from Chile? It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide what software people should or shouldn't install; we should only provide the best information for them to decide, and the number of reviews available allows us to do that. Absence of reliable sources in the article isn't itself grounds for deletion, as more sources are available. The proposer should also explain which aspect of WP:NOT this article is supposed to breach. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep - This is useful software, the article is reliably sourced, and does not come under any of the terms of WP:NOT - passes as a business, has third party coverage, no need for this AFD. BarkingFish 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has been edited a lot since it's creation from the mysterious user and it has various third party reviews and even had front page coverage on Yahoo. I don't understand the reason on why it was nominated, I think someone should make that clear. Also the software is opensource so anyone with knowledge on the programming language used can easily check for any suspicious code. Also if they are paranoid enough compile it from the reviewed source. --LoganLopez (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Prey, http://preyproject.com/index.php (“The name and logo for Prey are registered trademarks of Fork Ltd.”), with USPTO, Trademark Elec. Search Sys., http://tess2.uspto.gov/index.html (no record for word mark “Prey,” owner “Fork Ltd.”). See generally Fox-Stanley Photo Products v. Otaguro, 339 F. Supp. 1293 (D. Mass 1972) (holding that where corporation did not own a valid registered trademark, corporation’s representing to public at large that it did own a registered trademark was unconscionable conduct and illegal use). Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep – per WP:DEL-REASON; the nomination is vague in referring to entire guideline and policy pages (WP:RS, WP:NOT) to qualify deletion, and a potential conflict of interest a contributor to the article may possess (or conversely, may not possess) is not grounds for outright deletion of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive to Northamerica1000, Procedural Keep:

WP:RS -> WP:SELFSOURCE#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

“Self-published … sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, … so long as … the article is not based primarily on such sources.”

Of eight sources, four are self-published: ^2. Tomas Pollak, Prey Standalone Control Panel, GitHub. ^5. Tomas Pollak, Prey: Y Rastrea Tu Computador Robado [Prey: And Tracks Your Stolen Computer], Bootlog; ^7. Swapnil Singh, Make Your Laptop/Mobile Steal Proof for Free, TrickTacToe; ^8. Download, Prey.

The other four aren’t. I agree that WP:RS doesn’t apply.

WP:NOT -> WP:NOTADVERTISING

Advertising. “All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style.”

The article intro begins:

“Prey is a free and open source computer tracking software ….”

But even the company owner acknowledges that the software isn’t open-source.

“The code for the installers isn’t available, [nor is] the OSX lock binary.… As for the server code, we haven’t released it because we’d never be able to provide any kind of support ….”

E-mail from Tomas Pollak to Steven [], qtd. in Email from Tomas Pollak of Prey Project Admits Using Unlicensed Geolocation, Prey Project—Open Source Fraud (Aug. 2, 2011), http://preyprojectissues.tumblr.com/

-Dervorguilla (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2012 (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.