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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searchblox[edit]

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

Notability. There is a total lack of independent sourcing here.

The company is an internet business. It seems to have neither technical or commercial importance. It is a business, it does exist, but it doesn't seem to have attracted any coverage of it as a business. It hasnt innovated any new technology, it's just running off-the-shelf products. Viam Ferream (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this company except for possibly securityweek.com which is just a report of vulnerabilities in the product. Dialectric (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Books, News, browsers and Highbeam found links but this is still questionable for its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 24 February 2016 (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.