Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TemplateToaster

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateToaster

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

I am not convinced of the reliability of most of the sources. Apparent coi editing from a PR firm. Since it would appear to violate the terms of use, that's another reason for deletion. See User talk:Snehilsharma and [1] DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if this is relevent, but the erroneous GA template was added over a year ago by someone who only made a few edits, all around that time, and appears might have had a connection to the article creator. Lizard (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it looks like a manual page, detailed explanations of tabs. –Be..anyone 💩 03:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and unsourceable, and present purely as advertising (probably speedy-deletable, therefore). In fact, if we deleted the uncited product details (in how-to user manual form, likely a copyvio in any case) and the entirely inappropriate "Version history", there'd be hardly anything left. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the version history as an unambiguous copyvio. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and sourced to pr releases or dubious blogs. --regentspark (comment) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meh, very promotional. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:00, 27 April 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.