Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acrobits Groundwire

: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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

=[[Acrobits Groundwire]]=

:{{la|Acrobits Groundwire}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acrobits_Groundwire Stats])

:({{Find sources|Acrobits Groundwire}})

This article is about a VoIP client that fails our general notability guildeine as well as WP:WEB as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has it made a significant impact in its field. ThemFromSpace 18:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Page only has 2 refs: Voipmonitor.net is regurgitated press release, and the OnSip.com on its own is not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 17:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Acrobits. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Did not find any independent reliable sources with significant (or any) coverage about the topic, after an admittedly fairly brief search. (I don't consider the currently-cited onsip.com or voipmonitor.net to be reliable sources). I don't agree with merging because the information currently in the article does not cite an independent reliable source, and I don't agree with redirecting the title because I just don't see the purpose of it. Agyle (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

: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.