Talk:Norton PC Checkup

area of contention

When referencing the facts of public opinion on software it's really hard to achieve this with any individual source that passes WP:RS. So I can quite see why a couple of IP only users have removed the following item:

Users appear to be unaware that the utility has downloaded until asked to run it, and complaints are appearing on support forums globally.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGLS_enGB291&q='norton+PC+Checkup'&btnG=Search&meta= |title=Google search for 'Norton PC Checkup' |accessdate=2008-10-25}}</ref>

One needs to ask "at what point does an overwhelming number of Ghits on non accredited sources, one of which includes a support forum on Adobe's website, become sufficient to pass muster?

Since it has been deleted from the article without a full explanation I am putting it back in for the moment. Frankly I's also prefer a better quality formal reference, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reference is for the phenomenon of the volume and tone of the user complaints. That is the item being documented by the google search. The google search documents the names of the forums and blogs, none of which are, themselves, reliable sources. The reliable source is the collation by Google of the results list. Thus I contend that the paragraph is valid and that the reference should remain. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the definition of original research and is unacceptable for negative info like this. --Leivick (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is borderline for original research. On the basis that you have made this statement I will not re-add it since that would be contentious. However I am certain that this will only surface in forums and on blogs. The Google search shows that something exists, yet the search results only show non reliable sources. SO we have the issue that we either can or do not document a phenomenon because it could be argued that this is original research.

To me this seems to be peculiar. Can we take this wider from this article's perspective and see if an article specific consensus would be useful? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to seek other opinions on this matter, but I have to stand firm that referencing a google search is not acceptable particularly when the information is negative. If this is a notable and important piece of information, it will be covered in a reliable source. Just because it shows up in a bunch of forums and blogs doesn't mean it has to be included. I also am going to remove the "aimed at women." as I find it a very odd little factoid to wedge into such a short article. Obviously if the article was more than a stub and had a marketing section or some such, it would be fine, but I don't see how it is relevant in a stub. --Leivick (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)