Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply Many people contributed to this article. I've restored the version which was present at the beginning of March. Actually, upon inspection, it appears that significant material has been deleted from the article in the last few months. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply. In the past, editors who argued for such material were unable to provide any more reliable sources for their comments than anonymous forum or blog posts. As for the Reception section, if you feel that it gives undue weight to positive reviews then by all means please suggest reliable bodies who have given negative reviews to the product. This raises the question of what you expect an article about a software program to contain. D2SP ( talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply You seem to regard a description of the product's features as advertising. Again, why would I need to know any of this and also how does any of this describe its reception? Really, the whole thing is an advertisement.

contribs) 10:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply Furthermore, the entire 'Reception' section should be changed from 'Reception' to 'Shameless Plug'.Why would I need to know that? -Preceding unsigned comment added by D2SP ( talk Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply How is this not an AD: The freeware version includes on-demand malware detection and disinfection, while the paid-for version monitors for threats continuously. We've already discussed both of those points (the tone of the article and the notability of the subject) and both have been addressed to the satisfaction of the wider community. D2SP ( talk) 10:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply Thanks for your input. I vote for permanent removal as this topic is not suiting for a wiki of this caliber and the author is in denial of blatant NPOV. The entire page is one big advertisement. It also does not work as well as this page suggests (Just test it). On the contrary, MalwareBytes has lots of bad reviews (A simple Google for MalwareBytes Sucks draws out a few), thus is not received well by everyone as this post suggests. This reads like an AD posted by either the author of MalwareBytes or someone they paid.

Cnet spybot free