Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visionapp Remote Desktop (vRD)

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. NW (Talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visionapp Remote Desktop (vRD)

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

Declined G11 nominee. Asserted to be non-notable software product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like a sales brochure. No notable sources cited in the article and I am unable to find significant coverage for this software. LoudHowie (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was unable to find significant independent coverage of this product; the closest I came was this, which is not close enough. The long license section is spammy, and it doesn't help that the author is single-purpose and seems to be associated with the subject [1]. Haakon (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and non-notable. andy (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it spam, but everything except the infobox and History and See also sections is a copyvio (clumsily reworded in a couple places, but all of the significant text is cut-and-pasted, including grammar errors) of the official site, helpfully listed in external links. —Korath (Talk) 09:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was probably posted by the owner of the software I suggest we let the AfD run its course to establish lack of notability, in order to prevent re-creation, rather than speedying it. andy (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with all above, also yet another article that sprung into being complete with infoboxes, as one of the creator's first and only edits.[2] I can't speak for the software, but this article was made by pros. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 27 November 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.