Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernic Agent

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 merge to Copernic. I'm not entirely sure I've chosen the correct target article, so this should be worked out on a relevant talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copernic Agent

The only "sources" are online software reviews (I'm assuming solicited reviews?) and the company's own websites. WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy". This company does not meet that standard. The article was written by someone who apparently works for the company. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernic Desktop Search. B (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into the company's article, this doesn't seem like it needs it's own article. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @929 · 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I agree with the original solicitor of this deletion review, the software has a lot of press (165 hits on Gnews) but they seem to be solicited reviews and press releases, no significant coverage in articles of substance. It's possible that I missed something significant in there but that's a lot of stuff to wade through. It might be worth a mention in the main company's article, as mentioned by Irbisgreif, but I wouldn't be opposed to just deleting it outright. -- Atama ^chat 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. to parent company article. Topic fits WP:N, but not by it's own. -- RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 04:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the product is covered by coverage from multiple reliable sources. Examples include Detroit free Press, SearchEngineWatch, Computing Canada, PCPro. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 05:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Whpq, it appears notable enough. ComputerUser. "Deletion" is definitely inappropriate, merge would be ok. --George100 (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notable, but not enough material to merit article separate from company. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2009 (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.