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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pwnboxer[edit]

Prod was contested as the subject is considered by the contesting party as "very viable and very active". "Very viable" is subjective. "Very active": seems that it cannot be easily proven by this Google News search.

The article is poorly-referenced, being backed up only by two citations from different forums (one of which are owned by the developer of the software). Also, the only substantial part of the article, the "Highlights" section, seems to be promotional to me. Delete unless rewritten with my concerns addressed. Alexius08 (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find sporadic, trivial or unreliable mentions at google search. The software clearly exists, but since we can make noting reliable and/or independent exists beyond that fact, this does not appear to pass WP:N inclusion criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very viable, very active; also unverifiable through reliable sources and unnotable. Marasmusine (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (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.