Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TimeSheet (software) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TimeSheet_(software)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TimeSheet (software)

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

Looks non-notable. The search results are mixed up with other products. I don't know whether lifehacker is a reliable source. Most sources are from their own website businessrunner.net, the company which created this software. Greek Legend (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually there are many such pages about similar software Comparison of time-tracking software. TimeSheet (software) has 4 reviews on different sites, many WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS from the page Comparison of time-tracking software has less sources or reviews.Buhram (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four independent sources are enough for a small subject like this to prove notability, especially when other software of this same category has less; I really don't see a need to target this particular article. The article could certainly be better written. Please note also that the nominator has been banned for sock puppetry. Prhartcom (talk) 03:10, 14 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.