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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LifeTopix[edit]

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

Non-notable product; sources given are non-reliable. Lots of PR, amateur reviews, capsule descriptions, but nothing substantial and reliable. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is borderline G11, mostly sounds like an advertisement. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 16:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a few reviews but from relatively unknown sites not mainstream ones: blogs like e.g. Engadget, newspaper sites and technology magazines are not shy about reviewing popular and significant, i.e. notable, apps. But this has no such coverage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as above, 3rd party coverage is thin and not RS. Article was created by an SPA, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 00:07, 25 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.