Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Toolkit

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 speedy delete. It's spam All it says, every line, is look at what this can do. There's no history, no criticism, no anything other than a features list. Ged UK 14:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Toolkit[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT. This content, [1] reverted by a bot, appears to indicate the page is intended largely for promotional purposes. Taroaldo ✉ 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'delete - no claim of notability, "Black+Toolkit"+RAD Google search finds self-published sources, and the usual download sites. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and SALT pure spam and qualified for G11. This is an advertisement for the software, nothing notable about it. Tyros1972 Talk 10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, most of the stuff posted about unnotable software isn't enthusiastic enough for 'spam'. I'd support a CSD category for unreferenced software. This thing is probably very useful to a handful of people who will undoubtedly read about it in their techy magazines. If they do, the rest of us don't need to have it. If they don't, it's very definitely non-notable. I am impressed by it having a CRUD importer, though... Peridon (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2013 (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.