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. MER-C 08:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BullGuard[edit]

BullGuard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Borderline spam. The advertisement tag is unresolved since 2014, and there is very little written about this company by 3rd party sources. Little to no evidence of notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With so little apparent notability, and lack of reputable secondary and tertiary sources, the article should be deleted. --Egroeg5 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not convinced by the sources either, never mind the promotional tone - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For an article on a business, it's necessary to show a bit more towards notability than the facts they simply exist and carry on their business. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this company is known, but the article is not actually convincing, since the listed sources are simply trivial information and unconvincing PR, the sources are never actually substantial to suggest there would be meaningful improvements, and everything information-wise is simply stating what the company says about itself, there's no actually non-business-listing information, and that's because this only serves for PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I didn't know the company so I turned to wikipedia. A quick search yields: av-test august 2015 Consumentenbond mei 2016 toptenreviews They apparently use Bitdefender's anti-virus engine: techradar Are non of these reputable sources? Awards NicoLaan (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage in TechRadar doesn't provide a lot of depth; the rest of the sources are almost certainly not WP:RS. The endorsements of the company's products are little more than proof of existence in that industry. FalconK (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • and proof that by these organisations at that time they were considered best. When is an organisation that tests (anti-virus) software considered a reputable source? Do I need to ask this for each source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NicoLaan (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since we don't seem to have consensus over there on whether these types of awards are meaningful, it certainly couldn't hurt. My position is that most of those awards are a cheap marketing gimmick, and so I'd say they are not WP:RS, but of course I don't speak for everyone. FalconK (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO; this is a product brochure in the form of a Wiki article. Sources listed above are not convincing and do not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing to salvage here; strictly corporate spam. PS -- Extensively edited by a user with no other contributions, so paid editing is highly likely: Special:Contributions/Alexandrunistor. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (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.