Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Utilities

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. If someone has a target to selectively merge the content of the page to I would be happy to userfy it to them J04n(talk page) 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Utilities

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, all sources are press releases. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes a software product as it is represented by the company that manufactures it. The page is not supposed to claim that the information provided by the company is necessarily accurate. It can only verify that the company says what it says about the program. There was no scientific research conducted with the purpose to verify that the features that the developer company claims Remote Utilities has really exist. ConradSallian (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds to me that it might arguably fail WP:V as well as WP:N.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the Gnews search link above does reveal some independent reviews, particularly from PC World. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are both press-releases and independent reviews. If press-releases are the problem and independent reviews aren't, then the references to press-releases should be removed. Although, strictly speaking, the fact that certain information (such as feature descriptions) comes from the manufacturer does not necessarily mean that the manufacturer is an "unreliable source". Similarly, the fact that information comes from an independent review does not necessarily mean that that independent source is reliable. ConradSallian (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, I do not see quite enough coverage in independent WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete just another run of the mill program. This one has been around longer than some, but it's still neither novel or ground-breaking. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but could you provide us with your research on the subject? To make a bold statement about a program being "run-of-the-mill" one should probably be a renowned expert of the software industry in general and specifically remote desktop software. In other words, one must be a reliable source ;) ConradSallian (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI much?: Special:Contributions/ConradSallian

cf. Sea lioning Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I think there would be enough WP:RS to justify a redirect and selective merge to an entry in an applicable list, if possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I am not able to see any evidence of notability. For example, LogMeIn (another remove access client/service) is fairly popular and is discussed widely in various news articles. The same cannot be said for remote utilities. I do acknowledge that it originally started out as "Remote Office Manager" and it is true that in those days, we didn't have so many online websites. However, if I compare it with coverage of similar software from the early 2000s, I still see a distinct lack of coverage. The archives of PC World and other magazines do not seem to have much either. Perhaps the userbase using the software is not as massive which is responsible for the lack of coverage. My apologies to the creator, but I have to go with a delete.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2017 (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.