Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yet Another Cleaner

:{{la|Yet Another Cleaner}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yet_Another_Cleaner Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Yet Another Cleaner}})

Failed to establish notability

Notwithstanding this article has been deleted in the past, we were unable to establish that "Yet Another Cleaner" is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Every single "source" in the article is thin at best; The strongest reference from cnet is indeed a paid listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobusVP (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 November 2014‎ (UTC)

:I have made the argument at the article's talk page that the article is promoting malware masquerading as free software. Evidence that it is malware can be seen at [https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/a667751452665c2e239e75cfc04f40cd70deda350d4f8850c4860dc24087cbf1/analysis/ Virustotal], a highly reputable source owned by Google. Virustotal reports that 32 out of 46 users have judged it as malware. While Virustotal reports that most of the antivirus programs failed to identify YAC as malware, two top-ranked antivirus programs, Avira AntiVir and ESET NOD32 succeeded in doing so, with the latter identifying YAC as a variant of ELEX.Q. Googling ELEX.Q returns a great many sites that unanimously judge it to be a virus. Evidence for the reliability of AntiVir and NOD32 can be found by following the sources given at ESET_NOD32#Reception which says "[NOD32] stood above competitors like Norton Internet Security and ZoneAlarm but below Windows Live OneCare and Avira AntiVir." Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

::Discussing whether it is malware is nonsense if one already has its judgement. Regarding to virustotal, why did someone just take the analysis result generated more than three months ago as an example? I downloaded the latest program from the site and tested it using virustotal, and the result is [https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/4fb3f80ebb17f652dae6a704538c7ab0168618318054962d36e0cef3d5b93a95/analysis/Virustotal]. I will not judge if it is a malware here. But obviously, the editor, Vaughan Pratt, had already shown his prejudice. Besides, I am about to add two or three sources to complete this article, so I suggest the deletion of this article be put off. Heavy Punch (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• delete Insufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. -Pete (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• delete Not notable and should not be included on Wikipedia. JakobusVP (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Your nomination is your !vote. And the CNET ref is an Editor Review, not a paid listing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Actually the CNET ref is affiliate marketing and hardly an in-depth review, but you can see my views on this on the article talk page. JakobusVP (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Weak delete On the edge of notability with the CNET reference but not quite there. Needs another in-depth review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 28 November 2014 (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.