Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParentLocker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ParentLocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable software. Attempted G11 speedy-delete (listed by another user) was refused by the administrator. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The news article it puts forth does represent media coverage. The problem is that the reference it gives doesn't appear to be verifiable. It gives the publication, but no other info, and the link only points to another Wikipedia article. I might back off on calling for deletion if this were corrected, but as-is... - Vianello (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete that as blatant advertising. Tagged it again for speedy. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advertising. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination; another software package with no showing of website or business notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Discussion with the author has led me to believe that this article can never progress to encyclopedic nature. Fails WP:NOTE, no sources, COI problems. Livitup (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per my discussions with the author. As Livitup notes, there's no way this article can ever reach the point of being encyclopedic. S. Dean Jameson 21:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont delete please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.175.27 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The first reference provided doesn't even mention "parentlocker", and the second one pointed to an article which only provided a link to the ParentLocker web site. Also only 18 hits on Google. Definitely not notable enough for Wikipedia. gm_matthew (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (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.