Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factorbee

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factorbee

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by the single-purpose author of the software. I have not found any significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No showing of encyclopedic importance for this product; no Google Books, Scholar, or relevant News hits at all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ article by single-purpose author!!! it's a so funny expression haha!!!!!! I told you this also via email, as long as the article is neutral and the information true, who cares if i'm writing it!!!!!! Jimbo Wales wrote his own wikipedia page too lol!!!!! If the first ever made tor browser bundle for linux isn't notable, you've as well to delete a ten thousands of other pages of software!!!! I think that you're just jealous because you didn't anything of good in your life to add to wikipedia, but i made factorbee (and not only it), and yeah it's great!!! As for my "conflict of interest", it's of course true that i made factorbee, «The conflict of interest is that you are involved with Factorbee» so why not to deny Jimbo Wales to edit articles on wikipedia?! He has involvements with this website too!!! lololol!!!!!!! For sure you couldn't find a more nonsense reason!!!!! Why do you look at who's writing, in place of looking at what one is actually writing!!! Btw, the article contains only technical information, there isn't one non-neutral point of view; even if you look for it!!!! You just began to attack factorbee's article and you decided to delete it two days after i published it!!! lol it's not even complete -- however even deleting that article won't fill up your empty life!!!! if you measure your life and experience counting the edits you've done on wikipedia, and a product looking at the number of search results from Google (i image you use it, the worst web search engine and multinational company ever); it's normal if you cannot understand what is factorbee nor what's useful for!!!!! bye!!!!!! --bee (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it!! Of course, i'm for keeping it!!!! --bee (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources just aren't there to demonstrate notability I'm afraid. Quantpole (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable software; article written by an SPA by user with clear conflict of interest Nuwewsco (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (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.