Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Insight Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norton_Insight

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. TechOutsider (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, delete my insight. OK. Fine. See if I care. How can I possibly vote on this without there being a conflict of interest? I'd nominate your insight for deletion, TechOutsider, but nobody ever wrote an article about your insight. -- Noroton (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge/redirect to list of Symantec products— Preceding unsigned comment added by SF007 (talk • contribs)
• Comment Why did you create it then, TechOutsider? Am I missing something here? Gigs (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply I am now more NPOV. Considering that I created it and was its editor 99% of the time; deletion should be a no-brainer TechOutsider (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier[reply]
• Anyone? No more votes?
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Third party coverage indicates notability. Being 'more NPOV' now is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for copyediting - deletion is not a substitute for manual editing. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think he's arguing that he created this article as POV-pushing, and now wants to right that wrong. I'm not sure I buy that though. Gigs (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Thank you. It's just a stub and likely to remain one. Should be deleted. TechOutsider (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

• Keep That it will remain a stub is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 22:34, 30 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.