Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIMBY

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIMBY[edit]

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

promotional article on non notable software company. All the refs are either from their own website, or are press releases, or are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. With sections on History, Functionality and Funding, the purpose of the article is solely to promote the business. The company does not meet WP:NCORP; likewise, I'm unable to find sufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment promotion for a non notable copany. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator is exact with the analysis, I meant to comment sooner and say that all sources listed are trivial and unconvincing with these being coated with PR and the essence of it; the information itself is also then PR. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be independently notable and is thoroughly described anyway at the founder's bio article. Unless someone wishes to refine the current categories, I wouldn't recommend leaving behind a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2016 (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.