Deletion of SubRosaSoft.com Inc.

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  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 Wikipedia:CORP#Primary criteria|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; http://www.macworld.com/search/articles?q=subrosasoft this turned up 34 articles. A search of ''Macworld UK''’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to news results, http://www.macworld.co.uk/search/run/?eqs=69B1B181A296039D79B9A5CFA69A018BD6B9CE169C99B386ABAD9BE896928B4E82A24803A37D9AA33C9AC2BF89981EBBC09B8DD4B434EF6D70DF94844990B8A07A9E6DBA079D4A5692C60C4B8D9E928C0664A3AB98BDB19BA8A987B9AD8851E20F82A8EA0E23CD889D049332C9B9FB 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 &ndash; that is, until at least a couple of editors have examined these potential sources &ndash; would be prudent
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PRODUCT)

Comment: 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 . In fact, http://www.macworld.co.uk/macsoftware/news/?newsid=17967 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 http://www.macworld.com/article/29546/2004/02/homeguardian2.html only one review of a SubRosaSoft product, while ''Macworld UK''’s has two (http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/reviews/?reviewid=2428 FileSalvage 6.0, http://www.macworld.co.uk/macsoftware/reviews/?reviewid=2222 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 http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Category:Vendors 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  here; as things are, we should follow that guideline and delete this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORP)

Comment: Fails .  Sources search only returns press releases
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)