Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Lync Server
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Microsoft Lync Server (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)
Product does not appear independently notable, unable to find significant, in depth coverage in reliable sources to support GNG. Nouniquenames 11:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hello. Article does show evidence of coverage in secondary sources. I think the community must decide whether there is significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Maybe one or two of us can perform WP:BEFORE and see if it should be deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:BEFORE. E.g., try https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22microsoft+lync+server%22 or http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22microsoft+lync+server%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=. —Ruud 13:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. There are lots of how-to books and manuals. I don't personally think that makes it notable. --Nouniquenames 01:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (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.