Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echovnc


 * 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   no consensus to delete. - Philippe 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Echovnc

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete article, written by software developer, that makes no claim of notability. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Keep I added a section for notability, to clarify how EchoVNC is distinguished from other VNC platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbest (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * — Sbest (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong delete. The article fails to demonstrate why this software is notable. No mention is made of awards it has won, coverage it has received in independent reliable sources, or anything else that would meet the requirement. While there is an apparent conflict of interest, as the original editor appears to be the program's developer, the article is not a blatant advertisement. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A fair point. EWeek wrote about it, but it was a while ago during our launch, (article) as did ZDNet (article). It's also been an active project on Sourceforge since March 2005, and has been written up here and discussed here. Not terrifically notable sources, but not astroturf either. :)Sbest (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - If this article gets deleted you may as well tag RealVNC, TightVNC, UltraVNC  because none of those articles have sources even though reliable ones probably exist (they definitely exist for RealVNC, see 300 or so google news hits). Faradayplank (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who suggested the article should be deleted for having no sources? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he/she's saying that what the nominator was asking for was notability and usually that is established in sources (sadly) so if there are none, the assumption he/she is making is that the notability is not established (on wikipedia) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  03:56, 3 July 2008 (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.