- 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. Waltontalk 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam article lacking in verifiable sources and no case for made for Wikipedia:Notability. fails WP:CORP Hu12 11:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Struck the spam revert and went back to the version I threw out there a few months ago, but still can't make a case for NOTE - Haven't been able to find much of anything but listings on shareware and OSS distribution sites. MrZaiustalk 11:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Notability not established by the article & links given. EyeSereneTALK 11:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Try not to bite the newbies. The users who worked on this article are new and are trying to write in a non-spammy manner, as noted on my talk page discussion.-Wafulz 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Respectfully dissagree that this is a WP:BITE situation. Article was created almost a year ago (14 August 2006) and deleted twice. Since that time multiple editors, have noted their concerns for this article (22:05, 14 August 2006, 22:05, 14 August 2006, 01:45, 15 August 2006, 02:18, 15 August 2006, 06:38, 13 April 2007, 06:57, 15 June 2007 14:12, 15 June 2007). Not much more than an Infobox, external links to timetrex and catagories were added since. Plenty time has elapsed for the corrections to be made. Ip's involved with this article source from the same ___location. WP:COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote, Where the aims of Wikipedia are ignored in order to advance, in this case, TimeTrex. As noted on Wafulz talk page discussion started 27 June 2007, it took a deletion to have these concerns addressed. However, they were not addressed, the result was these edits after restoration of the page(28 June 2007), more promotional language, and links. No attempt at third party verifiable sources, or notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising TimeTrex.--Hu12 02:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I created this page not realizing it had been deleted in the past to try to prevent Comparison of time tracking software from being emptied out/listing purely commercial software after deleting the non-notable members, but, try as I might, I haven't been able to find much of anything that can be used to make a case for note for TimeTrex. MrZaiustalk 05:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:55, 4 July 2007 (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.