Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softwarelint

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Softwarelint

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

Speedy deletion template (A7) removed by an IP while the creator asked for a grace period to add references. However, at least half the article should be deleted to get past the G11 speedy criterion, and none of the sources qualify as reliable. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If half of it needs to be deleted, then delete half and see what's left. Give him some time to get good sources in order, or better yet explain to him what does or does not constitute a reliable source. Give the guy at least a week to get his stuff together, and then we'll talk deletion. Let's see what he's building before we start tearing it down. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources added so far don't look promising: Facebook, iTunes and blogs. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to just userfy this article if notability is not established by the end of the AfD? That way he'd be able to work on it at his leisure rather than have it potentially deleted outright.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe worth pointing out that a similar version of this article exists at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Softwarelint where it was submitted by User:Zemandi; it was also submitted yesterday by User:TannerJonesDriver and speedy-deleted, before the current version submitted by User:Thedeepsinghal (close to the name of the owner of the website). So while the original authorship of the submitted text is unclear, it does seem that there are enough versions available to be worked on. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:WEB, Nothing notable about this website for inclusion into an encyclopaedia. Mkdw ^talk 07:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete unlikely notable and also fails to meet WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Sources like Facebook and those sites in relation to the subject is very unreliable. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find any reliable sources not associated with the company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Several source searches have not provided coverage in reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage by secondary sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS found to indicate that the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH or its product meets WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cant find reliable sources to establish notability. Arunram (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2012 (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.