Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emsisoft Anti-Malware

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emsisoft Anti-Malware

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from one negative review, I haven't been able to find any independent secondary sources to support the notability of this product. fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this article can be significantly improved if it were edited and should not be deleted. I have spent some time researching the product and found the following sources:

1. http://www.av-comparatives.org/summary-report-december-2013/ (PDF)

AV-Comparatives tested 22 anti-virus products throughout 2013. 20/22 of these products have Wikipedia pages: AhnLab Inc, avast!, AVG (software), Avira, Bitdefender, BullGuard, EScan, ESET, Fortinet, F-Secure, G Data, Kaspersky Lab, Kingsoft, McAfee, Microsoft Security Essentials, Panda Security, Qihoo, Sophos, Tencent, and Trend Micro. Emsisoft Anti-Malware received 2nd place in AV-Comparative's 2013 Real World Protection category, outperforming all of these vendors, except for Kaspersky Lab.

2. http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/ (PDFS) See March-June 2013 and August-November 2013 PDFs for details on the tests that earned Emsisoft 2nd place in source 1 above.

3. http://www.mrg-effitas.com/mrg-effitas-project-35-mrg-effitas-time-to-detect-and-remediate-assessments-q2-2013/ (PDF)

Again, Emsisoft Anti-Malware is measured against a number of vendors, most of which have Wikipedia entries, and receives a 100% score, along with Avast, BitDefender, Kaspersky Lab, Trend Micro, Trusteer, and Webroot.

4. http://www.mrg-effitas.com/mrg-effitas-project-36-mrg-effitas-time-to-detect-assessments-q2-q3-2013/

100% again, with Avast, BitDefender, Kaspersky Lab, and Softsphere.

5. http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2013/06/vb201306-comparative (Can be viewed by making an account on website)

Emsisoft Anti-Malware scores 100% in Virus Bulletin's 2013 Comparative Review on Windows Server 2012 subtests and a Solid stability rating. Over 40 vendors submitted their product to this test. Only 31 vendors met the entry requirements. From that, 25/31 vendors received the VB 100% ranking. TrustPort, Tencent, Symantec, Sophos, SPAMfighter*, Quick Heal, Qihoo, Panda Security, Microsoft Servers, Kingsoft, G Data, F-Secure, Fortinet, ESTsoft, ESET, EScan, BullGuard, BitDefender, Avira, and Avast all received the same VB 100% ranking as Emsisoft and all have Wikipedia articles.

AVG (software), Check Point, Commtouch, Kaspersky Lab, and Norman Safeground did NOT receive the VB100 ranking, yet all have Wikipedia articles.

Note, SPAMFighter is also being considered for deletion but with a little research that page could also be improved.

5. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbackend.710302.xyz%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.comss.ru%2Fpage.php%3Fid%3D1554

Same story. Emsisoft performs as well or better than a number of vendors with Wikipedia pages.

6. Some press from WirtschaftsBlatt:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbackend.710302.xyz%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwirtschaftsblatt.at%2Fhome%2Fnachrichten%2Foesterreich%2Falc%2F1473209%2FEmsisoft-sagt-Viren-den-Kampf-an

7. Some press from Cyber Defense Magazine:

http://www.cyberdefensemagazine.com/emsisoft-receives-editors-choice-award-for-2013/#sthash.gh4ZAjYb.w1EVYV08.dpbs

8. Some press from PC Magazine:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412859,00.asp

Note, despite the title, Emsisoft receives praise where other vendors are receive criticism: "In fact, Imperva found that two free anti-virus solutions—Avast and Emsisoft—were on the short list of tested products that "provided protection" from emerging IT security threats."

9. An award for software excellence: http://www.euroconference.org/EpsilonHonored.htm

The above sources are just the good stuff. I'm sure there's plenty of negative commentary floating around for this page to be neutral. According to Emsisoft, their software is installed on 7 million computers (https://www.facebook.com/Emsisoft/info) and has 1% of the global anti-virus market share (emsisoft.com/en/company/about/). That seems significant enough to me, especially if it were to be backed by another independent source.

Another important consideration is that Emsisoft Anti-Malware is a software, whereas Emsisoft GmbH (non-existent Wiki) is a company. Many of the above listed vendors have Wiki entries for both their company and their software.

Of significance, is also Emsisoft's recent discovery of a new ransomware, which received coverage from the Haymarket Media Group: http://www.scmagazineuk.com/new-linkup-ransomware-steals-your-bitcoins/article/333213/ and The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/10/how-ransomware-turns-your-computer-bitcoin-miner-linkup

For transparency's sake: Yes I am a freelance writer working on behalf Emsisoft. But I think my research is at least enough to keep this article from being deleted, if the content were added by another objective editor or writer who might offer a more balanced perspective.

Thanks! Estebanluego89 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, you should try reading WP:COI Flat Out let's discuss it 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appreciate Estebanluego89 being honest and revealing the paid WP:COI. Unfortunately, the sources listed aren't sufficiently in depth to demonstrate WP:N or WP:CORP. The links provided appear to be merely incidental coverage (e.g., the Guardian article isn't about the company or its software, its about Ransomware). mikeman67 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Magazine article seemed much more than incidental. I'm not saying it's sufficient to meet notability, but it is an in-depth review, in a leading PC publication. Agyle (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see that the PC Magzine article mentions the company. It appears to mentioned among many other firms in a report the article is about, but that;s hardly significant coverage by the magazine. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (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.