Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenThinClient

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenThinClient[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was proposed for deletion by Mean as custard due to No indication of notability. This PROD was contested by an IP saying There are multiple sources stating its notability, but the article still has no references and I was unable to locate any significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Completely unreferenced; it could be that there are numerous articles out there proving how popular it is, but until they are cited in the article then it does not belong on Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage exists, but the only article I bothered to look at, Get thin client benefits for free with openThinClient, reads like a press release and is written by a 'serial entrepreneur'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be commercial fluff; the claims of the IP contesting the PROD seem to be in bad faith. I would not be opposed to draftification, since the article seems tolerably well-written, but this doesn't belong in mainspace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if anything, in order to lower the amount of fluffery that looks keen to engulf the project. The subject evidently lacks independent notability. All the attempts rate as a miss: advertorials such as this or this; catalog listings such as this or this; download sites, e.g. here; and so on. Then, we are cited their own website. Of course, the fact that the text has been created and curated mainly by kamikaze accounts does not help, even if that plural is inaccurate. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2022 (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.