Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizu WebPhone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mizu WebPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Blatant advertising. User is creating multiple pages for his organization with similar content (for promotional purpose) and little notability. Other similar pages are Mizuphone and Mizu Softswitch Calltech (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional info: Original Speedy Delete denied - admin thought it better to use Afd to allow others to view pages first. Comments located here on my Talk Page Calltech (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, minor VOIP client with no showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. There is no assertion of notability in Mizu WebPhone and no references from which notability can be inferred. Google shows lots of download sites but I am not seeing RS coverage. Mizuphone is not much better. Its 5 references are the product's manual and 4 "reviews", which are not RS reviews, just the product descriptions on various download sites. Its Google results are the same. No RS. It also lacks a clear assertion of notability. Add in the blatant COI and it stands no chance. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Both, as corporate advert of a non-notable commercial product. §FreeRangeFrog 01:29, 7 March 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.