Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scareware

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 speedy keep. pointy nom; snow (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scareware

neologism kgrr ^talk 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources use the scareware categorization, not just the internal spyware community. BaShildy (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- did you run it past EBSCOHost? Is it really used by academics in journal papers? It's recognized by urban dictionary kgrr ^talk 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is the nominator going to give a reason for nominating this article? In any event, notable due to high profile litigation against perpetrators and prevalence of the problem. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article created by the nominator, Hot stain (AfD discussion), was nominated for deletion for being a neologism. Within 10 minutes, xe in turn nominated 2 other articles for deletion, with the same one-word rationale: "neologism", later augmented with the same largely irrelevant "It's in Urban Dictionary." argument. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point appears to apply, alas.
  But no, notability is not due to the litigation and the prevalence of the problem. Notability is not fame nor importance. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, notability is in-depth coverage in multiple independent published works that are independent of the subject, which this subject has. Some of them — not even all of them (as some quick research revealed) — are even cited in the "References" section of this very article. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep fairly well sourced article and prevalent problem. No arguments for deletion.--Moloch09 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term is well sourced in the article, so it clearly is not a neologism. Anaxial (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, it's entered common usage. ←Spidern → 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:32, 26 March 2009 (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.