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. Jamie^☆S93 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeamViewer[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable software product. The only source beyond the company's own Web site is a review of a beta version; TeamViewer does not seem to meet the criteria for notability. It is also rather promotional in tone, including a how-to section for establishing a connection and a section describing the pricing model. —Bkell (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeamViewer is one of the widest spread remote control tools worldwide with many million users so it shouldn't be at all irrelevant. TeamViewer was reviewed by the most influential IT magazines and is a state of the art tool for desktop sharing. If you think this is non-notable then please check here Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software to find some non-notable companies as you put it . So where should we start deleting articles?

I will put some third party citations to the article which will prove its status in this field and will edit it from the ground. Let me know if you should have further suggestions. Altalavista (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete all but the first two paragraphs, the rest is all marketing, promotional and advertising using mainly blogs as references. The main contributor also has a clear conflict of interest. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teapotgeorge, thanks for you comment. Lifehacker, Downloadsquad and CNET (CNET is actually a IT news platform) are some of the most recognized IT-blogs worldwide and have more readers than lots of magazines or print publications. A lot of users contributed to this article as you can clearly see in the history, so I'm not the main contributor but the initiator. Contributions from my side are mainly the citations as one of the critics was that TeamViewer is a 'non-notable software product'. This shouldn't be an issue anymore. Please also help to contribute to it where you think it might be biased. Altalavista (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that is has improved. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to improvements, and I hope more improvements will follow. German sources are also allowed, so if there is German press coverage or awards then those should be added. Verbal chat 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The software seems to be adequately sourced to satisfy WP:N.

Relevant search results:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/software/programming-software/softpedia-teamviewer-314840/review

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/159331/teamviewer_desktop_collaboration_app_now_maccompatible.html

http://www.macworld.com/article/138757/2009/02/teamviewer.html

http://www.macworld.com/article/133663/2008/05/teamviewer.html

http://www.webuser.co.uk/products/TeamViewer_review_4811-7428.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/TeamViewer-Full-Version-Is-Free-Download-Here-90156.shtml — Rankiri (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of Rankiri's find. Plenty of coverage of it. Dream Focus 18:21, 10 June 2009 (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.