Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JollysFastVNC


 * 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. The "keep" opinions ignore that WP:N does require substantial coverage in reliable sources. Whether the software is good or bad does not matter under our rules, sorry.  Sandstein  06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

JollysFastVNC

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software product. Haakon (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software, but that's because I didn't bother trying. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: You must be nuts. This is the best VNC client for the Mac, bar none.  This RfD is a sign of ignorance.  AshtonBenson (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is AFD. This comment is based on you thinking that it's useful and based on no guideline. Read WP:CIVIL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, AshtonBenson! But it's not (yet) supported by the article.  If you'd like to see the article stay, what you need to do is find independent, reliable secondary sources that put forth the view you're advocating, and then cite them in the article.  If you do that feel free to note that you've done it here and I'll revisit my opinion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced AfD is up for a week. If this is notable and references show it in the week this is at AfD, I'm open to changing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no significant coverage has been demonstrated. whether it's the best or worst vnc is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. fails WP:N Theserialcomma (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Best VNC client" or not, we need some kind of evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties.  Do you have any, AshtonBenson?  JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing speedy delete, Delete - it does not pass WP:N in that it does establish its notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: You must be nuts. Other VNC clients are also in wikipedia. This is one of the most modern for Mac OS X.  User: Jollyjinx 21:20 29 September 2009 (CET)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Please note that "other stuff exists" is specifically not an argument against deleletion. Nor is your assertion that the product is "the most modern"; if it's not notable, or it cannot assert notability, then it fails Wikipedia's criteria. Also, speculation about other editors' mental condition is not an argument against deletion, either. Haakon (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Wikipedia cesspool, where armies of meatpuppets and the ability to quote WP:WHATEVER from memory will always trump real Knowledge.... AshtonBenson (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where armies of editors attack everyone that disagree with them. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to offend anybody with 'are you nuts' but I wonder if the whoever marked this has any knowledge of the VNC area on Mac OSX. There are only two free VNC clients on the Mac out there an the other one is from January 2006. So I assumed that this one IS noteable. User: Jollyjinx
 * Keep- As far as I can see, there are only 2 comparable players concerning VNC for Mac. This and Chicken of the VNC. I can understand that there is a lack of sources. It is for the Mac, It is freeware and vnc is not a particularly mainstream activity. I found some sources after a brief search. I imagine that someone who knew the subject could improve this page. In the sea of software it may not be notable, but in its particular pond it seems to be a large-ish fish. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:58, 30 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.