Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MP3 Rocket
- 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. per
WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
]
MP3 Rocket
- MP3 Rocket (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)
As I just noted on the talk page, this app comes bundled with malware. If there was a tag for flagging articles on malware apps and websites, and policy to back placement of the tag, I wouldn't be proposing this be deleted, but there isn't, so I am, per IAR. Open to other ideas. Elvey(t•c) 01:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Unless I'm missing something we don't delete articles just because you've got a virus? ....... –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep - nomination for invalid reason. While the article sourcing is poor, and an argument could be made on the grounds of notability, whether or not software has malware connections is not a valid reason. Wikipedia has many articles on malware, viruses, etc.Dialectric (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy close as no reason advanced for deletion. If it is notable and well-documented that it comes bundled with malware then that should be mentioned in the article, but we fortunately don't have a policy of deleting things on wikipedia just because they are bad. Deadbeef 06:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Genuinely one of the worst nominations I've seen in a long time. Nothing in the nomination is policy based, and we have articles on actual viruses, so... It also hasn't always come bundled with malware either, and has reviews at PC World and Softonic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I should also note that 7/68 detections, most of which are from what I would consider to be fairly minor AV programs, and some of which are generic warnings that are typical of false positives, is far from being persuasive that this app actually has any malware in it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Lukeno94Are those not on the defunct software from the company before it started from scratch as a YouTube downloader trojan purveyor? (The former isn't, but the latter seems to be a hybrid.) But look at this comment at the former:
Like so many other programs that PC World doesn't check out thoroughly, MP3 Rocket shows up on many antivirus/antispyware programs as malware, and opens windows for other malware. I had to clean a client's computer twice, because she insisted it was ligitimate. Consequently, I don't trust the reviews, without digging deeper.
I have seen the same thing.- Not to mention that it claims to be free/open source: GPL licensed, but the source is nowhere to be found.
- But it's not malware? Sure, it might not be. Though it triggers other AV apps heuristics too, if you try to install/run it. If I'm wrong and it doesn't come with PUP or worse malware, I apologize for overreacting. --Elvey(t•c) 23:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (edited)
- Keep, but if that's sourced properly it should be noted in the lead if it comes bundled with malware. — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's a three-day old file. It would be not surprising if some of the AV programs aren't up to speed. Trend Micro is hardly a minor player. Does anybody dispute that we need a tag for flagging articles on malware apps and websites, and policy to back placement of the tag? --Elvey(t•c) 23:39, 20 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.
