Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal queue Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_queue

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 redirect to Virtual queue. People can copy content over that is salvageable Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal queue (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)

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since August 2008. Covered only in blogs and other unreliable sources. I realized that the tag removal was a mistake after seeing that the source I added was only a blog source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disputed -- Gartner is not a blog. It's basically as legit as you can get business wise. prat (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEO. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- trivial & not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere. The whole unified messaging / universal queue / unified communications notion was a thing, is a thing, and should be put somewhere even if it's not article worthy. I am against deleting reasonable content on principle. Let's look for somewhere to merge. Currently the best options appear to be:

1. Virtual queue (my preference)

2. Unified communications management

3. Unified communications

prat (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't oppose a redirect to Virtual queue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Virtual queue looks like a reasonable solution and is preferable to deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:02, 21 July 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.