Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Boss Parental Control

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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. I've also blocked the article creator for spamming. —SMALL JIM 12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time Boss Parental Control

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable software. No indications of notability, references are questionable/promotional. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a search round, but couldn't find anything in reliable sources that asserted notability. Of the existing references, I think anything that says "Network edition of famous award-winning parental control" without saying what the award was, combined with a tenuous grasp of English, is about as reliable as the gasman turning up to read my meter at the actual time he said he would. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did the initial prod of this article, about which I wrote: Non-notable software. I looked, and couldn't find any verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. That's still the case. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. The "external reviews" are really just ads written by the software's publisher on various sites. The article author's edit history indicates that he might be related to the software's publisher, as he has published only article's about their products. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the lack of independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the refs provided meet the standard of reliable 3rd party coverage, so no indication of notability, created by an SPA as likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Editor seems to have COI issues. Limemine (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2012 (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.