Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vbuzzer (2nd nomination)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vbuzzer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, lacks sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The one link to a local Toronto newspaper is 404, leaving just a few links to "DSLReports", a BBB listing saying the company is out of business and a token one product review on CNet for its single app, a proprietary messenger client locked to one small VoIP server. Article was created by Special:Contributions/Vtalker, a single-purpose account much like Special:Contributions/Vbuzzer and Special:Contributions/VoIPReview, as advertising and has a long WP:COI history. The one prior WP:AfD ended 'no consensus'. Much of what's here is unsourced, self-sourced, badly-sourced or is advertising. Apparently there's nothing at the last physical address listed for the firm, and its notability for inclusion was questionable when it was still there and open for business. K7L (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about the software and service, so WP:NSOFTWARE applies and the notability of the company is not relevant. Use of any of the "Find Sources" link at the top of this pages shows many possible sources for this article. I've added two to the article. Articles should be judged by their content, not by who created them. The article is certainly not that good, but that's a reason for improving it, not deleting it. Notability is not temporary, so whether it's discontinued or not isn't the point. It still has a functioning website at http://www1.vbuzzer.com/. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Montreal Gazette item is a press release or an advertisement, the "for dummies" item just a passing mention within a long list of other rival products. WP:NSOFTWARE does not trump the requirement for notability; Wikipedia is also not a directory of all software packages that exist or that have ever existed. There is not enough info in reliable sources to write a useful article on this product without citing press releases, user reviews or vendor advertising — a red flag for lack of notability. Furthermore, the notability of the software cannot be divorced from the notability (or lack thereof) of the underlying VoIP provider as this app cannot make voice or fax calls through any provider except vBuzzer. It does not replace general-purpose, standards-compliant, provider-neutral SIP clients like Ekiga, SIPDroid or CSipSimple. Defunct companies may be notable if they're Eaton's or Penn Central sized, but some tiny hole-in-the-wall company whose office is now empty and whose telephones no longer are answered is not noteworthy. K7L (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Montreal Gazette reads like a press release rehash. The 404'd Globe and Mail link noted above can be viewed via the Wayback Machine. The article is not very substantial. I did not have any luck coming up with any more substantial coverage. On balance, the coverage available puts this below the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability. Per Whpq and K7L, existing sourcing is either incidental or company PR, and does not meet the threshold of significant, independent RS coverage. A search turned up no such coverage.Dialectric (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.