Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formtitan

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. Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formtitan

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

Article about utterly non notable software that should've been speedied. But unfortunately there's no speedy criteria for them. No evidence of notability, no decent sources neither in search nor in the article –Ammarpad (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable at all. SportingFlyer talk 04:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a Salesforce.com#AppExchange item, with primary and partner sources. The text is unclear ("Security is said not to be an issue with formtitan as it is attentive for by no means or effort saved and ranged the software devices at the user level from the physical strictly.") but does not appear to be describing anything notable. My searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some useful information. It seems to be a new software. I think it should be kept as a Wikipedia page. Ukbenstar (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Ukbenstar talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC) — Ukbenstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It is not a new software. The article contains some vital points. Other editors are free to contribute and make it better. I feel it contains enough information to be allowed to remain as a Wikipedia page. Mbetohenry Mbetohenry (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC) talk — Mbetohenry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Three of the citations are to their own website. The other two are advertisements. A search turned up no indepdendent WP:RS sources. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. fundamentally promotional. we have a little campaign going on that is likely UPE. See also Formlogix (which I have nominated for speedy) Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2018 (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.