Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton LiveUpdate
- 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. No consensus to delete, weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Norton LiveUpdate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norton_LiveUpdate&wpReason=No Account of Notability. Can be condensed into one sentence. All primary sources citing Symantec.%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FNorton+LiveUpdate%5D%5D&action=delete delete]) – (View log)
No assertion of notability. TechOutsider (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep/merge not present in the article doesn't mean they don't exist. There are plenty here which can be used to expand the article. Failing that, if not independently notable, a merge could be considered. StarM 22:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment the sources you presented do not directly concern LU. TechOutsider (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
- Comment at least the Tampa Tribune and NetworkWorld one do and in some depth, as do the Washington Post and zdnet. As I said, if it isn't independently notable, it's possible a merge could be considered. There's far too much coverage for outright deletion. StarM 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment the sources you presented do not directly concern LU. TechOutsider (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
- Weak Keep or Merge I think a merge was probably the best thing to do... SF007 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or merge I deprodded it; the prodder objected, and I suggested he bring it here. Norton's products are generally notable, butIam not sure this is best seen as a serparate product or as an internal utility. ~ At worst, it could be merged to other articles on the company's products.DGG (talk)
- Keep! There are too many Norton ultilties that uses lu. It would be teadous to edit all of them. For example, Norton Ghost, Norton 360, Norton Internet Security, Norton AntiVirus are some of the Norton programs that uses lu. --Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment All LU does is download/apply updates. That pertains to all other AVs. It's a given. How bout merge with Symantec? TechOutsider (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
- Comment2 What! Symantec the company. That that doesn't make any sense. --Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 01:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Tyw7 LU is found across all Norton products. Putting in on the company page would only make sense. The separate article is stubby. Incorporating it in every article, in your opinion, is too tedious. However, I do not think it is notable at all; no major news coverage. TechOutsider (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
- Merge somewhere, not sure where. -- samj inout 12:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This article demonstrates -- as do several above it -- one of the critical weaknesses of writing articles on many computer topics: lack of reliable sources. That doesn't mean that the subject is not notable or worth an article -- just that the bar for writing a useful article is higher than for other topics. If any or all are deleted then I hope it would be without prejudice, so an editor down the road who can uncover the needed sources & create a solid article doesn't need to fight a bureaucratic mindset her & in DR to keep the article listed. -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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.