Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checker Plus for Google Calendar

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. Sandstein 09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checker Plus for Google Calendar

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

The article doesn't really meet the Notability requirements. Should any Chrome Extension that has been written about in a blog post or review have a Wikipedia entry? Pattern86 (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted. There is simply no content that cannot be found on the website for the extension. According to Wikipedia's policies, advertising is prohibited. The article is simply not educational, it is written with the same conventions of an App Store blurb. The article is not a hoax and the idea for the article is not in and off itself bad. That said, the lack of content and the advertising nature of the article are grounds for deletion. If the article contained tricks to use of the extension, instructions for installation, or a history behind the develop, things may be different, but as written the article is strictly advertising. --Alexeink (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to back this article up. Additionally there may be a CoI with the author of the article being the author of the subject software. The fact that the article gets created the same day the code goes into it's latest stable release is more than enough to convince me of a CoI on this article. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (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.