Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EchoVNC (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. J04n(talk page) 14:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EchoVNC

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, and tagged for multiple issues since 2013. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - previous afd, from 2008 and closed as no consensus, is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echovnc. Dialectric (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing on News or Newspapers except a link to softpedia. A few trivial mentions on books and scholars, and zip on Highbeam. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, nothing to suggest better satisfying the software notability guidelines. Notifying the only still active AfDer C.Fred. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the previous AfD, there's this article from eWeek, but that's about the only coverage that seems to exist. The previous AfD also mentions a ZDNet article, which was seemingly gone dead. I'm not really seeing significant coverage here. The eWeek article is basically just a glorified announcement, and I'm assuming the ZDNet article is more of the same. Unfortunately, archive.org doesn't have it archived. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2016 (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.