- 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 no evidence of meeting wikipedia policies. Jaranda wat's sup 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant spam/COI. Author fortune3 (talk · contribs) has no other edits, and the tone sounds promotional. Shalom Hello 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one of many e-commerce shopping cart programs, no evidence of notability other than various lists of downloadable shopping carts. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN shopping cart with no RS. the_undertow talk 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Whether this counts as a reliable source I don't know, but I'm sceptical...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection - Notability evidence: Inc Magazine Article about shopping cart: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:FxRvo0PAJxEJ:technology.inc.com/internet/articles/200610/abandonedcart.html+inc.com+fortune3&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Google Partner (Google Checkout Official Integrator) at: http://checkout.google.com/seller/integrate_getnew.html Paypal partner - official solution provider: https://www.paypal.com/en_US/html/SolutionsDirectory/sd_prosol-fortunes3inc.html UPS partner - Official solution provider: http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol/offering/technology/alliances/application_ecommerce.html#Fortune3 Download.com (more downloads than any other E-Commerce software): http://www.download.com/sort/3150-2649_4-0-1-4.html?tag=dir
- Delete being listed on websites dont count for notability Corpx 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After testing the above objection notability is easily verifiable. --upzon 01:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Has reliable sources, but the conflict of interest is of a concern.--Kylohk 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not a single source in this article. the_undertow talk 06:35, 13 July 2007 (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.