Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeflow

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. czar 03:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeflow

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

This article does have a few sources, but none of them are have a reputation for editorial control or fact checking. The first is an indiscriminate software directory. The second is a competitor's website. The third is a self published blog on an unrelated topic (ambient sounds). I've looked and I haven't found anything better available. Since this article lacks reliable sources, it does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. In your reference searches, keep in mind that there is a second program named 'Timeflow' that was created by a professor at Duke University, that's not the one we're discussing here. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The article also does not pass the criteria in the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software) since this software has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It also is not taught in multiple schools, not the subject of multiple third-party manuals, and it does not have historical significance. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 17:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 3 March 2017 (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.