Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant housecall


 * 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. MuZemike 00:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Instant housecall

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotion for non-notable software. Many Google hits, but seems predominantly to download sites. No signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the few Google News hits it gets are to PR sites not independent coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The initial addition was based on someone else's article [].  I initially added it because it's a useful addition to Comparison of remote desktop software.  This software is just as notable as 90% of the entries in that article.  It's a well known, useful product, and I originally heard about it on a Tech talk show on the radio in mainstream media.  Removal of products like this one would require a complete revisit of all of the other equivalent entries in Comparison of remote desktop software, almost all of which are useful additions to the comparison chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs)  — Riptider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Deleting this article would not require revisiting the other articles listed. See Other stuff exists. Notability has to be asserted in the article through citations of third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Wikipedia guru -- this is my first kick at this can, so I can't cite Wikipedia laws. Why not leave the article of a perfectly valid software product that's widely used so that it has a chance to build those third party references?  They must exist, but I don't have them (or the strong desire to go around digging them up).  I suggest we let the article grow organically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs)
 * You don't need to be a guru. At issue here is notability of the software.  If you can show independent reviews or coverage of the software in reliable sources, then it's likely notable.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand and if that's the decision rendered, I'm not going to argue. I would point out, though, that it's equally notable to almost all other similar software in the Comparison of remote desktop software and it's a very valuable entry in that list.  While I agree that it's not as notable as say Microsoft's Remote Desktop, it's just as notable as 90% of the other entries in that list.  Why is this one piece of software in particular being singled out for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs)
 * Because nobody has gotten around to going through those other articles, evaluating their notability, and then nominating them for deletion. Like I said, other stuff exists. Haakon (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It remains valuable addition to that chart and for that reason, I think it should be kept. It has been blogged about in many different places (just added a couple) -- I just can't point to MSM coverage except for the radio show I heard about it on which is obviously not referenceable on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs)
 * Added more references. Some from blogs, some from mainstream media which would include the "reliable sources" you're looking for.
 * Delete - I cannot find any coverage about this software in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2009 (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.