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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totsy[edit]

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

Not convinced this is notable enough. Rd232 ^talk 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article may not be too notable but there might be a reason to keep it seeing some of the references in the article.--Nidhi. mehta333 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references in the article consists of press releases, and Wikipedia itself. The only thing that comes close is some coverage in TechCrunch which is a tech blog, and may or may not be a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the references are press releases and it's hard to see how this reference is relative to the article. Two citations of Wikipedia as a reference also. Article is about a new business model and does not satisfy [[WP:ORG] and the notability criteria listed here are not met by the articles references. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2011 (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.