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. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RogueKiller[edit]

RogueKiller (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:CursonMF (creator, WP:SPA) with the following rationale "Secondary sources were added (others will follow). Removal of the Proposed deletion banner.". I don't find the added refs very convincing, the best they show (and I don't see anything better) are reviews from minor websites: Bleeping Computer is the only one of that bunch that has a Wikipedia article, and it may need to have its notability considered, too. And few reviews in minor sites of dubious reliability are not sufficient to make soft notable. So, bottom line, this software fails NSOFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Probably notable based on the staff-written description on Majorgeeks, 299 reviews and 950k downloads, but I'm not seeing any examples where they actually suggest using it! I'm going to delete the fluffy "reception" section as it has no place on a functional software article. Jergling (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Majorgeeks a reliable source? It doesn't seem notable, so a review in it does not hold that much water, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The references fail the criteria in WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - a few references about, but typically it appears in a list alongside other products. I don't think that there are enough references to show that it is genuinely notable. Shritwod (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a vanity page / WP:MANUAL on an unremarkable product. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as trivial with nothing close to establishing both a convincing and improved article thus deleting solves it, and that's the clear solution here. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 25 November 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.