Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeleGate (networking) (2nd nomination)

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. Swarm ♠ 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleGate (networking)[edit]

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

non-notable software - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. PROD declined, 2011 AFD closed as no consensus -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Previous afd turned no RS refs, just a list of links to others using the software. My more recent search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. It is possible Japanese-language coverage exists, but unless it is provided, there is no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I always consider pinging past editors, I'm pleased to see you commented or else I would've likely pinged. Was this article added to your watchlist, Dialectric? SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dialectric's arguments. ABF99 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches easily found no better results and especially not anything comparable to the time it has existed here (started April 2009) so it seems obvious this software is not widely known or otherwise notable enough for an article. Pinging past users RobertMfromLI, Orangemike, Kvng, CorporateM, Nabla, Graeme Bartlett and Ysangkok. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added what I believe is a WP:RS to the article. I could only find one so not enough for me to advocate Keeping. Enough to show that the Delete positions claiming no RS are not compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a RS source. Your 'do your homework' edit summary, however, is unhelpful and does not WP:AGF. As I typically do with these articles, I searched at least 6 google search paged deep for a range of relevant terms including 'DeleGate proxy', 'DeleGate proxy server' and 'DeleGate server'. None of these searches turned up your result, or indeed any RS coverage. The few fully relevant results are personal blog posts.Dialectric (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "homework" I was referring to in my comment was a call for those advocating deletion to come back and update their arguments for deletion: "No reliable sources" is no longer valid argument. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2015 (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.