Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IVisit

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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IVisit[edit]

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Found PROD'd; previously PROD-dePROD in August 2007 (diff between PROD'd versions shows substantially the same content). Latest PROD nominator states "Advertisement for non-notable software." I think the article could use some cleanup and "de-fluffing", but could be improved through editing, but I have my concerns about whether the software is notable: does using a proprietary protocol and operating through a (presumably) novel port configuration satisfy notability guidelines? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary sources provided in the article, no sources could be found via google. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. BJ^Talk 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Computer networking has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bjweeks. It may also be notable that the author has been trying to advertise the program on other pages: [1] Black-Velvet 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I haven't heard of the software; nor do I care about it. It doesn't look like the article is popular among editors. I'm going with the underdog vote on this one just because... Other crap exists, but I don't think this article is an iProblem. Someone might soon revive it & make it presentable. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not the original author, but I have provided several sources for the article and tried to add more relevant information. Earthsound (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability and sounds like an advertisement. Marlith ^T/C 04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability; only secondary sources talk about creators, not the software itself. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability standards. ― LADY GALAXY 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references in the article are poor, however, a Google news search shows that the software has been reviewed by the major technology press, and mainstream press. PC World has this review and has in fact covered it more than once. There is also a Chicago times article behind a pay wall. There are many other results as well that look promising after sorting through press release type info. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2008 (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.