Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash with DD

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash with DD

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

Totally un-notable application. There are no independent sources cited, and searches have not provided anything suitable. (PROD contested by the article's creator, who appears to have a conflict of interest.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article writers point of view

It is very shame to speak up for discussion about some experienced Wikipedia editors have a lot of proudness in them and try to suppress the new editors As I believe that internet does not distinguish between people so must the senior editors must follow the same. Independent sources about articles were added at the time the article was created but same problem editors think themself great and tend to remove it please keep the sanity of Wikipedia so it will really contain information or else we will only find articles of pseudonyms on the Wikipedia space(Tiven gonsalves 16:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

Please don't take it personally, its just that the article does not meet the standard for a subject having its own article on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
VG/RS search shows nothing. Obvious delete. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no sources other than the official site for the app. For that matter, the article doesn't even clearly explain what the app does. (I note, however, that the article creator has disclosed his status as a paid editor on his userpage for several weeks, so he has been in compliance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure since then.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG - there doesn't seem to be any third party coverage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to this app it seems. No RS, no coverage at all, this is the textbook definition of not being notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and Salt (given the past 2 deletions including since they have both happened in this past month) as I in fact planned to nominate myself when I noticed the PROD was boldly contested, this is still entirely advertising and overall unacceptable, none of it convinces actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2016 (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.