Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MicroSIP (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MicroSIP

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has never been referenced, is completely promotional, the software isn't notable, and now the page is being used to link farm to malware. 107.115.5.36 (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I have formatted the AfD here per the IP editor's request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing either in the article or via a Google search to suggest the subject meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' – This AFD was started due to this ANI discussion. I'm not sure what I think of the nomination though, having heard of this software, but I think it's worth pointing out the last deletion nom and the sources listed and mentioned therein (though I don't know how strong they are). Graham87 (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a single academic citation in the previous AfD - to a paper on another topic, which documents the use of MicroSIP as one of the tools used. [1] This clearly doesn't constitute in-depth coverage of MicroSIP itself. Beyond that, the AfD seems to involve vague hand-waving at supposed sources, rather than anything concrete. I think we'd need more to go on to justify an article. As of now, we have nothing in the way of independent sourcing to build an article around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the addition of problematic links is not in itself a reason for deletion, as page protection can be applied. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete - Reviews by ~~Softonic and~~ About.com: [2], [3]. There are results on Google Books & Scholar, best one seems like this one linked at previous AfD: [4]. There's also this list entry by Lifewire: [5]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A review on a website offering the software as a download isn't an independent source - Softonic has a clear interest in boosting the products they host. About.com review material is generally regarded as a SPS, and thus unreliable. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The About.com reviewer could be considered a subject matter expert. He specialized in VoIP-related topics: [7] and is cited in this thesis by University of Bedfordshire: [8]. --Mika1h (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point about Softonic, I did some digging and they seem to package adware with their installation files. I changed my vote to delete. --Mika1h (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2025 (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.