Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZeoSync

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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZeoSync[edit]

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

I'm not simply not finding any better coverage aside from my best search results here, here, here and here. This seems like an excellent example of a start company that faded away quickly and had no substantial legacy or otherwise better attention but I even question if it actually existed as there's simply no good information and the only move target is Book:Hoaxes Vol.4. Thus with simply no improvement and staying basically the same since July 2007, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Notifying author Metaeducation. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not strictly a hoax, at least not on the part of the article's creator. The company is mentioned here in the New Straits Times in January 2002 for its supposed data compression discovery. Other experts challenged these claims in sources like CNET. It appears to be an abandoned startup that couldn't deliver on its promises and quickly dissolved into obscurity. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources are notable enough andan interesting subject. WP:N, seems legitimate--Sιgε |д･) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSINTERESTING are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Briefly generated minor interest and then sank without a trace. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company did received coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is not temporary. Bharatiya29 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I suppose that if we found someone writing this up as an object case of the gullibility of the computer press or something like that there would be a reason to keep this. As it is, it's more of an example of how the existence of sourcing doesn't produce notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. --Rubbish computer 11:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete needs more independent coverage like mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 4 October 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.