Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICall


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  05:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ICall

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Very sketchy coverage in reliable sources (several mentions, one sketchy review, no in-depth coverage). Also the software is likely a run-of-the-mill. I doubt it is notable. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep I am the article author. Article is about a corporation and follows these guidelines: Article meets all WP standards for corporate articles and should not be deleted.
 * Coverage sources are reliable and secondary
 * Coverage depth of the three refs is beyond mere mentions.
 * Coverage source audiences are both National and Regional.
 * Coverage sources are independent of corp.
 * Coverage is not self-promotion.
 * "Companies reported as significant subjects of news coverage are usually sufficiently notable"
 * Article is written from a neutral point of view
 * Chatterboxer (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I see two brief reviews,both in extremely reliable sources. It would be better if they had been full reviews, but I'm inclined to think that what David Pogue covers in  the NYTimes   is notable enough for an article  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per DGG; it may not be too unique but it's at least been covered to the point that I'd consider notable. Ducknish (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- and improve. Even when you filter for false positives, there appear to be plenty more articles about this company/product in Google News search. Yakushima (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2012 (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.