Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohawk Voice

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. So Why 13:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Voice

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not finding any nontrivial coverage of this in reliable sources. [1] and [2] list alternative programs, [3] is a changelog (also a forum), [4] is a forum, [5] is also a forum (where someone is asking if anyone still uses this, and received no replies, incidentally enough), and neither the Speex references nor the VSNX reference (archive here, for your convenience) in this article even mention this program. A rather gross failure of our beloved GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Should not delete the article but can place a refimprove tag.NANExcella (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NANExcella: Sorry for the very late reply. I confess I fail to understand the logic of this vote. So far as I can tell, there is no sourcing to improve it with, which is why I claim it fails GNG and why I nominated it for deletion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. SpinningSpark 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no verifiable notability, on the basis of WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB. The current sources number two dead and two that are about something else. WP:BEFORE scares up fifty articles about hairstyles for every one about the subject, generously. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2018 (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.