Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FancyKey

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. Sam Walton (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FancyKey

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

This was originally prodded by User:Swpb with the following rationale: "No references or indication of significance." It was deprodded by User:Wojingdaile, creator, with the following rationale "add references". The new refs are, however, not sufficient. In my view the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing obviously better yet but draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be promotional article spam produced by single-purpose account about a non-notable product. The body of the article is simply a list of article features, which belongs on a product website, not in an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than a few trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage to show it passes notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:41, 21 November 2015 (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.