The result was keep. sufficient consensus for a keep here JForget 02:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason One: Fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability guideline as it neither asserts notability nor shows any evidence of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources.
Cursory web search came up with the following results:
Reason Two: This article is written like an advertisement.
Deletion is advised. Fleet Command (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CNET blog post is not acceptable per WP:NTEMP: CNET is no longer hosting the download, therefore the review is just a "burst in the news".
As for the rest, they are blog posts. Personally, I don't accept them as notable. Let's see what administrators think about them.
Then we get to the second concern: Even a well-sourced article should not be an advertisement; It must be encyclopedic. An article which is well-cited and well-sourced but has no contents other than that of its product website plus some testimonials is not acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:PROMOTION.
Fleet Command (talk)Comment Yes, I agree that the article's notability can now be established. We can now wait for nomination period to expire and the article to be rescued.
However, I still believe that CNET's review is not eligible as notable because FormatFactory is withdrawn from CNET. This withdrawal should also be taken into account. Notability does not need ongoing coverage, yes I know, but withdrawal is different from lack of ongoing coverage.
Fleet Command (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]