Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket.Chat

Rocket.Chat

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

Article about an open source competitor to Slack that appears to have been written by the software's creator. It gets a fair amount of press coverage, but mainly in articles about possible alternatives for workplaces to use instead of Slack, or in software listings of similar products. I don't feel the coverage amounts to what is needed under WP:ORGDEPTH. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete: (Note: I declined the speedy deletion on this article) At least from online sources, this software appears to have a large number of sources covering it to a very minimal extent (most articles simply discuss it briefly as a competitor to Slack. I concur that it contains too trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG. It is relatively new software so it might be simply a case of an article written too soon. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no question about it, a clear spam campaign with all the contributed signs. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gabriel Engel from Rocket.Chat here. I don't understand how, a community of contributors and users of an open source project trying bring awareness to a free alternative to expensive paid collaboration applications, can be considered a spam campaign. Honestly, this is disheartening. Our project is a result of the collaboration of 100s of developers from over 40 countries. It has been used in many government institutions, universities, NGOs, companies and has been scientifically proven promote innovative entrepreneurship on a experiment by the Centre for Economic Policy Research. If Wikipedia's policies won't allow the page about a free award wining platform used by millions of people to collaborate better, fine, I accept it - I'll be deeply disappointed and thinking that this policies may be preventing Wikipedia from doing some more good to the world, but I accept it. What I cannot accept is for our community to be branded as "a clear spam campaign". If you think that the article should be improved, please let our community know what to fix, but I honestly believe it would be a mistake to deleting it. Gabriel engel (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]