Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acrosync

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. Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acrosync

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

Possibly unotable backup application (made by a promo account) that also looks like it falls under too soon even. Wgolf (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I declined speedy deletion for this article.) I can't find anything but SEO, press releases, and user-generated content, in roughly that order of density. Delete for failing WP:NSOFT. —Cryptic 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT; unable to find any sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: yeah not much about it apart from the fact that it is an independent implementation of rsync protocol, will try and De-spamafy it. Gioto (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no reason to keep the article. Writing software to implement a published protocol isn't particularly noteworthy in and of itself, and certainly not so overwhelmingly noteworthy that we should set aside our usual inclusion criteria for it. Its mentions in rsync#Variations and rsync#rsync applications are already more than enough, by a factor of three or four. —Cryptic 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed, and that is why I added it to the table on rsync#rsync applications Gioto (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no 3rd party reference, and too new (2014-10-30) for an encyclopedic article. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2015 (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.