Deletion of ProFicient

Comment: and '''salt'''.  Nothing indicates that this |software product has any historical, technical, or cultural significance.  The existence of "many, many other statistical software packages" suggests that |few or none of them rate encyclopedia articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:MILL)

Comment: I can't find |significant coverage for this software
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as although it ''sounds'' like it ''might'' be notable, I can't find WP:notability|significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so we can't |verify the contents of the article. I had a good look, searching for "InfinityQS" rather than "ProFicient" (too many false positives for the latter, and any ''significant'' coverage would include the name of the company): {{findsources|InfinityQS}}. The News hits appear to be reprints of press releases, as does the existing ref in the article, so don't count as independent reliable sources. There are some ''mentions'' in books, but no sign of ''significant'' coverage. It's true that there are many other statistical packages with articles, but |that's not a good argument against deletion—quite a few of them probably don't meet our WP:notability|criteria for notability either (though I wouldn't go as far as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:verify)