Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperAntiSpyware

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. Spamtastic! No assertion of major notability. seicer | talk | contribs 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuperAntiSpyware

Article originally created and speedily deleted as spam, the author recreated it in a more neutral manner but has since been editing it such that as of now just about every sentence but the first is promotional in some way. Delete as spam. Ros0709 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear example of an advertisement. I was preparing to send this to AfD myself, as a PROD tag has already been removed. The author does not appear to be amenable to allowing the article to be more neutral. Besides, its notability itself is in question. Enigma ^message 06:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one that should head to AfD. Enigma ^message 07:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not written as an advertisement. It just shows the function of the program, the differences between editions(as many other programs show, such as Ad-Aware or Visual Studio), and the critical reception. The article is NOT written as an advertisement, and has clear facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's SPAM although perhaps unintentional. Non-notable and non-verifiable in accordance with the policies and guidelines as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. It reads like advertising. McWomble (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I almost deleted it right away (in fact, I did until I saw that someone else than the obvious program's author was trying a bit to work on the article). I fear, though, that the article is not salvageable. Delete with prejudice. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and keep. The nomination in fact suggests that a better version exists in the history of the current article. My understanding is that this is one of the better known free anti-spyware programs; I have used it myself, so it meets the "heard of it before seeing the article" test. PC Mag review suggests adequate notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comparison table between the free and commercial version. What do you think now? Note: I'm not a developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Removed parts, added more review links, added more features —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Emperordarius, I think it's pretty clear by now that you're editing this article with a flagrant conflict of interest. As is, and in any version constructed by Emperordarius, the article crosses the line into spam and I recommend its deletion, at least until someone can rebuild it from a purely objective perspective. I do think the article can be rescued but one might as well delete the present version and start again from scratch. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't understand WHAT you consider spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added System requirements and history (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Redesign of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, current version is certainly acceptable. The deletion nomination wasn't wrong, though, based on the article at the time. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 September 2008 (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.