Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubRosaSoft.com Inc.


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

SubRosaSoft.com Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  18:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- Fails WP:N. Sources search only returns press releases. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure whether this article should be kept or deleted, but I request that this be relisted for another week instead of being closed after seven days. There are potential sources here which need to be examined before this discussion can be properly concluded. The final paragraph of WP:PRODUCT reads, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." This may be the case with SubRosaSoft.com; even if we can show that its products have been reviewed independently, the company itself needs to be the subject of coverage in secondary sources in order for the relevant guidelines to be met. Google searches for independent sources about the company itself are frustrating, turning out a sea of press releases. So I tried a simple search of Macworld’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to articles; this turned up 34 articles. A search of Macworld UK’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to news results, turned up 14 items. Macworld and Macworld UK are reliable, secondary sources, but I haven't analyzed any of these results to see if any provide the significant coverage needed confer notability, nor will I have the time to do so until later in the week. But I think that holding off on deletion for now – that is, until at least a couple of editors have examined these potential sources – would be prudent. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, henrik  • talk  20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete As noted in my comment above, searching the websites of Macworld and Macworld UK for "subrosasoft," restricted to news/article results, yielded a total of 48 hits. Having looked at each of those, I don't think that this software company meets our guidelines for notability. All or nearly all of the results are short-takes, most of which amount to "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued," which are classified as trivial coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, this short-take is the only article I found which was about the company itself and was not routine, trivial coverage of the company's products. Unfortunately, the piece is does not amount to in-depth coverage. Macworld’s website appears to have only one review of a SubRosaSoft product, while Macworld UK’s has two (FileSalvage 6.0, DasBoot); this low number of reviews does not correspond to the number of news-briefs. In addition, a search of MacUser’s website for "subrosasoft" yields zero hits. Finally, while my vote doesn't rely on this, it's worth noting that Forensicswiki.org lists SubRosaSoft as one of 42 "vendors of computer forensics software and hardware", which suggests that perhaps the lack of significant coverage of the company is an indication that it's not among the most prominent of those vendors. If it was among the most prominent, a case could be made that we should ignore WP:CORP here; as things are, we should follow that guideline and delete this article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2012 (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.