Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symantec Endpoint Protection Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Symantec_Endpoint_Protection

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 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symantec Endpoint Protection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. Purely primary sources affiliated with Symantec. One sentence paragraphs. Lack of any truly encyclopedia information. Can be incorporated in Norton AntiVirus or Norton Internet Security as a note; "the corporate edition is named Symantec Endpoint Protection and ... ". TechOutsider (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. PCMag, even if affiliated, is a syndicated publication where non-trivial reports in products confer some notability; most likely, there will be other reviews as well. Also, there is a standard for handling instances of inherited notability, where the article's content is merged with it's parent and then redirected (rather than being erased), but in this case, Norton isn't a pure parent of a product branded under the Symantec label. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Keep! I think every Norton products deserve a seperate article. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 13:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really don't think that Norton fanboys should have a page for every product just because of the fact that it exists. If someone wants to build a more encyclopedic page, with references and citations, as well as other more-developed pieces of information, I would say keep it. Otherwise, the emount of information offered for a product that's been on the market since 2007 has no excuse for the meager findings here. --CoyoteWildfire —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I agree with the above comment by CoyoteWildfire. The product is hardly notable and has received little news coverage. It's not a "Norton", however a "Symantec" branded product. If the consensus doe not agree to delete the article, it should be merged with Symantec.TechOutsider (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Sigma7 and User:Tyw7. Junk Police (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While this may not be consumer software, if it's reviewed in major publications like PC World it would appear to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Just look at the volume (487 hits) of google news sources: [1]. As people have above, some of these are detailed reviews in widely-read publications. There are even 10 hits in google scholar: [2] Cazort (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No notable information; it is essentially Norton Internet Security, only centrally managed TechOutsider (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[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.