Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPAMfighter (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMfighter

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

Minor reviews do not provide enough to make this a notable software company or product. Indeed, it's impossible to tell if this "article" is about the company ... or the product. Only references are to its own, and external links are not sufficient to denote notability ES &L 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sufficient reviews of the product over a considerable amount of time. The PCmag review runs to 5000 words about this single product so cannot be considered minor. Plenty of other reviews including some which place it best in class satisfy all the requirements of WP:N.--Salix alba (talk): 13:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the reason why this should be kept is it seems to be in the top three products in the spam filtering category. A google search for "spam filter" puts in the first page, Cnet's list of spam-filter software has it as the second most popular [1] (the assassin and phone-number lookup entries are sponsored/not relevant). --Salix alba (talk): 15:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Software of unclear notability, deleted in afd in 2011. Apart from the PCmag ref in the article, all of the other reviews I found were from blogs or download sites, and almost all a paragraph in length or less. the crunchbase overview is basically a business listing and does not establish notability. toptenreviews, the other review referenced in the article, has been discussed several times at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the consensus has been that it is not RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional, and primary contributors to the article have been other SPAs, suggesting a possible ongoing promotional strategy.Dialectric (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that a Crunchbase company profile doesn't impart notability for GNG/CORPDEPTH purposes. See related discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verasafe. The PC Magazine review does impart notability for GNG purpose. I'm still on the fence about the overall verdict for this product. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The free, consumer product is also mentioned in a dozen books [2] (usually with a brief blurb) which indicates that the PC Mag review wasn't a fluke, i.e. there is some sustained interest from independent sources in the product. A shorter review exist in PC World [3], and a review of the (non-free) server-side product can be found in Techrepublic [4]. There's also a review of the Apple version in a more obscure publication [5]. The TopTenReviews review has a video version [6] (on "AOL On"). These last two sources I've mentioned are of rather low quality though (close to being just adverts). Since this is a Danish company, information focused on the company should be sought in Danish sources too. Computerworld.dk has a couple of articles here and here focused on the company rather than its products. dk:Business.dk (a site of Berlingske) also has an article [7] (of 2005 vintage) about the company and so does Ekstrabladet (2011) [8] (though what that latter article says mostly is that SPAMfighter's author has made it to the millionaire's club and has relocated to the US...); probably more reliable sources exist in Danish because a google search for https://www.google.com/search?q=SPAMfighter+site:dk returns plenty of hits, but I'm not exactly familiar with the Danish press to immediately tell apart the RS ones from the rest. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (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.