Deletion of Bitweaver2

Comment: This article has been deleted twice in the past few weeks, and the current content still does not assert sufficient notability.  Wikipedia:Notability (software) states that a software application is sufficiently notable if ''"The software has been |verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine."'' (Although  is a proposed guideline, the above requirement is essentially identical to the general requirements set forth in the Wikipedia:Notability essay and official policies such as  and .)  Note that the software must be the ''subject'' of the coverage, not just "''mentioned in''".  When this software program achieves the required level of notability, I'm sure someone who is not an employee of the company will write an article about it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SOFTWARE||WP:CORP||WP:WEB)

Comment: The entire body of currently |verified content in the article is: ‘Bitweaver powers a large number of websites including high profile and high traffic sites such as viop-info.org and viovio.com, and is used extensively by Lulu. Interest in advancing the project has come from Bob Young, co-founder of Red Hat. In March 2006 it was discovered to have an HTML injection vulnerability.’ Unquantified assertion of notability and no context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: This AfD is not about mindless deleting or inclusion.  The problem with your arguement is that this AfD is about if the article passes all of WP's Standards. If it does, GREAT!  If it can not be proven it does pass all the standards then it does not have a place on Wikipedia. So far, it does not pass two of the main pillars of Wikipedia...,   (Possibly  but perhaps it's just how I preceive the tone the article takes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Spiderr, to be honest, Wikipeida has rules, guidelines and standards that apply to all articles. It doesn't matter if an article has been here since wikipedia's inception or was just created a minute ago. The same rules apply. Regardless of what you 'believe', , , and  need to apply to all articles. Those are rules you can't ignore
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I can not see how the article passes .  Where are the Reputable, Independent, Third-Party sources (websites and personal blogs are not acceptable under wiki's policy for primary or secondary sources).  I don't see how this passes any notablility.  Last thing is if you repost an AfD, it is helpful if you also post a link to the old AfD. Since the old AfD was contested, please provide a link to that as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: apparent |vanispamcruftisement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:VSCA)

Comment: In my opinion  isn't really the issue here. Any claims about third parties that are made in the article are referenced and  specifically allows self-published sources to be used in articles about themselves. As I see it notability is the problem, and it is important to remember that, despite earlier claims,  and  are ''only'' guidelines and not policies, and that  is not even a guideline. As a proposed guideline it should be treated with a great deal of caution - a criterion that it puts forward may be the opinion of no more than a couple of people, and may be gone tomorrow. The wikilawyering by the article's supporters isn't helping, but I'd ask everybody to look at the article again and ask yourself whether you would nominate it for deletion if you came across it at random. I'm not arguing in favour of it because I fixed it up (I've fixed up articles and still argued for them to be deleted), but because I think the bar for notability here is being set too high when compared to other articles we've kept (kept ''after'' AFD, not kept because nobody has put them up for deletion yet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V||WP:CORP||WP:WEB||WP:SOFTWARE)

Comment: The problem with the Newsource article interview is it is not focused on Bitweaver only.  That makes it a 'trivial-source' per the stated Policies (read them if you disbelieve me). We do not have Multiple, Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources that mention this software exclusively. We have an article with a passing reference, and a handful of security warnings from a software security website. Nothing that would denote a passing of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: The only thing I want to point out is there are limits to what is acceptable as a self-published source (From ) ''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party news organizations or publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on a professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.'' Hence the reason I said this fails 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V)