Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FilmFree

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) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFree

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

Non-notable software product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFree is notable: It's the highest rated non-linear video editor on sourceforge. Who are you, WikiDan61, to commit someone else's (mine in fact) hard work to deletion because it's not 'notable'? Leave the page alone. It will expand over time to provide information and help to the project's userbase.65.167.42.237 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide free web storage to provide help to FreeFilm's user base. If the product has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it does not meet notability criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N. The subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See [1]. — Rankiri (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad sources and fails WP:N Bonewah (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only Ghits I found were blogs and a Facebook page. By the way, 65.167.42.237, I see where you're coming from, but the subject has to be notable before it gets an article, not after. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early. Wikipedia is not for promotion. BTW 93% of 16? I make it that 14.88 people recommend it. Could be wrong... Peridon (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be one of those human-animal hybrids. — Rankiri (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

93.75% to be exact. 15+, 1-. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.42.237 (talk) 15:24, 16 March 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.