Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netop Remote Control (3rd 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 both. No prejudice against re-creation with appropriate sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Netop Remote Control

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

This software's article is sourced only to the developer's website, a couple of reposted press releases, a review from the kind of site that indiscriminately reviews any and all software, and a Analyst's report that the developer sponsored. I don't see the multiple reliable sources that are needed to show notability here, so I think this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I am also nominating the article on the developer for all the same reasons:

MrOllie (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kantonus said they would "rebuild" the article at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 100#Netop Remote Control but if they do not with a few weeks may as well delete this again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that the template on the Netop article points to a deletion discussion from 2008, not this one. And the hatnote on Netop Remote Control is not accurate about the redirect. Clearly each of the two does not show notability now. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with solutions for example has not looked very far into what this company does vs. what that article is about, or is attempting to mislead. So I would lean delete unless some independent sources can be produced. Would be odd if it is not covered even in a Danish or other language source for example. The company claims to be on some stock exchange, but at least when I tried to look it up could not find it. Ah, note this news - company has del-listed itself because of possible acquisition by Consolidated Holding A/S? If this kind of thing was ever picked up by the press perhaps a decent article could be put together. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2013 (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.