Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubRosaSoft.com Inc.

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SubRosaSoft.com Inc.

SubRosaSoft.com Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject of the article lacks

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails
  talk) 05:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I'm not sure whether this article should be kept or deleted, but I request that this be relisted for another week instead of being closed after seven days. There are potential sources here which need to be examined before this discussion can be properly concluded.

  The final paragraph of

  the relevant guidelines to be met. Google searches for independent sources about the company itself are frustrating, turning out a sea of press releases. So I tried a simple search of Macworld’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to articles; this turned up 34 articles. A search of Macworld UK’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to news results, turned up 14 items. Macworld and Macworld UK are reliable, secondary sources, but I haven't analyzed any of these results to see if any provide the significant coverage needed confer notability, nor will I have the time to do so until later in the week. But I think that holding off on deletion for now – that is, until at least a couple of editors have examined these potential sources – would be prudent. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, henrik•talk 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As noted in my comment above, searching the websites of
  WP:CORP here; as things are, we should follow that guideline and delete this article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]