Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TagTooth

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TagTooth

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

The subject does not seem to be notable: neither independent reliable sources are listed in the article, nor to be found off-wiki. The only references in the article are startup profiles, which would not be sufficient even for article about company, not to mention that the subject of the article is software, not company. The only contributer to the article's content is an editor with virtually no contributions outside this article. Article was previously nominated for speedy deletion per criterion G11 (spam) by MJ94. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Poorly sourced, No independent sources found, and product is also non notable. Fails WP:PRODUCT and no any reliable evidence of its notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Heavy use of marketing language appears to be an advertisement for yet another business trying to jump on the social networking bandwagon. Dolescum (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally tagged this article as a candidate for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the article's creator (thus violating WP:CSD policy). Afterwards, a PROD (added by CZarkoff) was also removed by the article's creator. TagTooth does not pass the product notability guidelines, nor does it pass the general notability guidelines. The article is filled with peacock terms and contains no reliable independent sources. MJ94 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2014 (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.