Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instinctools

Instinctools

Instinctools (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)

This article was originally listed as a Speedy CSD G11 deletion. My review is that it is not that clear-cut of a deletion based on review of sources and content. However, it could still qualify for deletion--I think that the best course is to build consensus toward that rather than just have a blanket delete action. Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. I'm the one who speedied it, and I still think that was the appropriate course of action. With the amount of this junk we deal with, I don't see the need to waste time on it. MediaKyle (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Germany, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete: G11 is not the correct course of action here; the amount of promotional content does not require that the article be "fundamentally rewritten", as G11 states. That being said, the subject does not meet WP: GNG, and I could not find any additional sourcing from a WP: BEFORE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

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.