Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frugalytics
To address Searchmaven above (who, by the way, is the sole contributor of the article, and whose commentary perks the  flags for me), there is no demonstration of notability.  Also, the BB Sync article is but one review, and reprint (i.e., duplication) of this article in Business Week does not connote notability.  Forgive me for being about as subtle and gentle as a tornado, but buzzwords don't help the fact that there is an observable dearth of demonstrated notability.  I see many places that offer it for download and plenty of blogs.  I see some reviews, but the scope strikes me as narrow.  To be honest, it's difficult to get software into here - it truly has to pass , which, since the closure of the old software notability guidelines, is the correct guideline for software notability.  If you want to change my mind, follow the guidelines there, as well as |here and |here
— User:Dennisthe2, 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:CORP||WP:RS||WP:V (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)