Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxbe

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 keep. Sandstein 05:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxbe[edit]

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

This site is a phishing scheme to get email addresses for spammers, but we are apparently unable to find reliable sources about it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books gives The Economist and Kerry Gleeson (2008). The Personal Efficiency Program: How to Stop Feeling Overwhelmed and Win Back Control of Your Work (4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons. p. 134. ISBN 0470371315.. Google News gives 34 hits. Southend sofa (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only one hit in Google news for me... Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now get 38 hits from this. Southend sofa (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your (Sławomir Biały's) search is only for articles published in the last month, so it's not surprising that it misses most of the relevant articles. Relevant search links are automatically provided in the nomination statement to inform the discussion, so why not just look at those rather than link the results of a search that is useless for the purpose of checking notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - above link shows coverage in MIT technology review. This along with mention in the Economist suggests that this software has notable coverage. Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as dialectric states.. link and economists.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2011 (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.