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 verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toggl Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promotional article about some time tracking software that relies on passing mentions and reviews for sourcing. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. FalconK (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Hough, Brenda (2018). Crash Course in Time Management for Library Staff. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-4408-5067-7. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     The book has a detailed review of Toggl. The book has a "Pros" section and "Cons" section. From the "Cons" section:

     Cons:

     • Easy to forget to "start" and "stop" the timer when you begin or quit working on a task.
     • Must have a device with you (either your desktop or smartphone) in order to track (or else you need to remember to manually enter time for offline tasks once you are back online). This can be a challenge for some library staff. [quote from a library staff member]
     • If you don't want to track your time on an ongoing basis, it may not be worth the time required to set up projects and complete other fine-tuning of the tool.

  2. Duffy, Jill (2020-12-16). "Toggl Track Review: The free tier may be all many users need". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

     The review has a "Pros" section and "Cons" section. The review notes:

     Toggl Track, formerly just Toggl, is an intuitive time-tracking app with a generous free tier of service. You can get more advanced features, many of which benefit teams, if you pay for a Starter or Premium account. Toggl Track has desktop apps and a browser plug-in, as well as mobile apps for tracking time on the go or in meetings. It's an Editors' Choice time tracking service for freelancers and micro businesses because they can get so much out of it for free. It works well for teams, too, as long as they're looking for an app that specifically tracks time spent working, without offering invoicing, expensing, or employee-monitoring services.

  3. Joseph, Cliff. "Toggl. Self employed? Track your free time". MacLife. Retrieved 2021-01-04 – via PressReader.
  4. Tsukayama, Hayley (2017-01-23). "App reviews: Blackbox, Toggl confound and create order". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04 – via The Denver Post.
  5. Pau, Aivar (2017-08-09). "Idufirma Toggl lõi oma värbamisettevõtte". Postimees (in Ewe). Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  6. Waddilove, Roland (2013-07-30). "How to use Toggl". PC Advisor. Archived from the original on 2019-11-07. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toggl to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree that the article is semi-promotional, but sourcing appears to meet WP:GNG. Could use a minor cleanup. Redoryxx (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a personal opinion but those sources are not providing significant and detailed coverage in my opinion. Seems WP:MILL to me. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep seems more like an advertisement, but coverage in plenty of independent sources makes it pass WP:SIGCOV. 78.36.163.169 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - reliable sources containing Independent content and in-depth information. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 26 January 2021 (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.