Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Office

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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not Advertising, marketing or public relations, not notable, no secondary sources could be found on the product, mostly first party links Iammsully (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2016 (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/2016 March 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful for potential users. (And the number of users makes it important) OlavN (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness is not an established criteria for keeping articles. The issue here is notability, WP:N, and the lack of reliable sources WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in addition to its utility for our readers and those who wish to utilize the actual software and garner information about it, it has also been the subject of a nice bit of secondary source coverage over the past several years. — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should have been a speedy. If you remove the generic hits by searching for ("Virtual Office" "ContactOffice Group" -wikipedia) instead, you find nothing can be found to help this product meet WP:GNG. The "utility for the reader" argument must be ignored as it's not even an acceptable one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I did my own search and can't find anything to show notability. The argument that it should be "useful for potential users" and "its utility for readers" isn't part of Wikipedia's notability/reference policies or part of any policies that I'm aware of as per Dialectric. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found one brief 2001 mention ([1]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) of Fortis Bank using ContactOffice software, which may be or have been this product-set, but nothing to indicate that the product is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 31 March 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.