Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThoughtTreasure

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. ✗plicit 06:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtTreasure

ThoughtTreasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No independent sources in a decade. Nothing obviously independent in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article was pretty clearly created by the person responsible for authoring this software in an attempt to promote it. It has 12 followers on github and no updates since 2015. I find some refs, at last one of which is authorised by the guy who posted updates on GitHub and wrote this article, but not in depth coverage in multiple RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2022 (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.