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.
Since WP:SOFTWARE is not a finalized guideline, I also submit that this article fails WP:BIO miserably with absolutely no assertion of notability. ju66l3r 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. What I have found on Google Book Search and Google Scholar is really thin. Added what I've found as references [1]. The article is verifiable. Strictly speaking, it appears to meet WP:CORP (products): "The product or service has been the subject of multiple (two - two identified I mean) non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself (seems so - the publisher McGraw-Hill seems independent from the authors)." Borderline case... (should be moved to Launcher X by the way - if the result is to keep it). --Edcolins 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Weak Keep here's a non-trivial published work about it:[2] and an article mentioning it:[3] The internet is loaded with places the selling the product but very few discussing it excluding forums or blogs. Quadzilla99 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just notable enough to meet the notability. Somitho 10:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Quadzilla —siroχo 08:43, 24 January 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.