Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyCog

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. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TinyCog

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software. No independent references provided. --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAILN, Search came up empty for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom. WP:PROMO Educationtemple (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:PROMOTION –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT, lack of coverage in reliable sources. If a target for merging or redirecting can be found, then merge or redirect instead. Esquivalience ^t 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: zero references. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's basically nothing out there on this. It seems too soon for an article as of yet. The few hits that do come up in a Google search are basically typos in novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2015 (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.