Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhoneGnome


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PhoneGnome

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

This article does not provide sufficient references to indicate importance. It has been tagged since October and nothing has been provided. ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Speedy delete, article about a tech business (VoIP phone service) that contains no showing of importance. References given are to press releases, company websites, and blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  00:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. If the New York Times writes about you, you're notable. The article from the New York Times listed as a reference mentions a number of VOIP providers, but the discussion of PhoneGnome is significant. Similarly, Network World is a reliable source. TWICE Mobile is also a reliable source, and is a print publication published by Reed Business Information. GigaOM appears to be a reliable source as well. See the credentials of the staff listed at http://gigaomnetwork.com/editorial/  The TMCnet blog item is by  the president and group editor-in-chief of TMC which publishes several magazines, so I would argue that it also is a reliable source.    I am not familiar with Voxilla, but the coverage from the other publications is sufficient in my opinion to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, including the NYT (coverage doesn't need to be exclusive to satisfy WP:N). This discussion really became moot after those sources were added, and can probably be closed now. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article does claim notability as being the first, and does have enough sources, and more refs could be added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have been nominated without checking for sources, and it does have them. DGG (talk) 19:58, 29 January 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.