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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackra1n[edit]

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

Not remarkable or noticeable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Google returns mainly references to what it seems to be a press release and a reference on how to use it. Other references seems to be people's blogs. The article do not contain one single reliable and trusted references that backs it up. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see previous AFD [1]
Keep At the previous afd, some references were listed, but nobody added them to the article; I have now done so. They seem substantial to me--and not just me, the previous AfD was a unanimous keep, except for the nominator. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the references and the previous AfD (for the records, was for another app, this one was second listed on the same process, so I did not see it), I agree it should be kept. Still the article requires some re-write. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:00, 28 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.