Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bombax (software)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombax (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find any significant independent coverage of this Mac OS software. In fact, +bombax "mac os" -wikipedia returns only 104 GHits. There's this page from ciol.com, which looks like it could maybe be a tech news site, but as it turns out the entire article is just this press release from PRWeb. Fails notability.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a genuine software app with some niche potential. The notability at present is questionable. The hype around this software (still in beta) seems to have begun in the past week. This thread clarified some aspects for me. Annette46 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This would appear to be software in beta, and describes itself as a Mac OS X web server and web application framework that allows the creation of a special type of Cocoa application called a "BxApp" to run as a web application by transparently interfacing it with a modified nginx web server through FastCGI.  Google News, Scholar, Books: all blanks; Google groups discussion boards would not appear to be reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I haven't seen any substantial change in the article since I posted the original Nomination for Speedy Deletion that would make me think this is a notable piece of software. It may well develop into one, but coverage is slim and it's very niche.  Bagheera (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No signficant coverage in secondary sources as far as I can tell. Pcap ping  00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.