Deletion of Prey (software)

Comment: Software has received significant press coverage; article references TechCrunch and LifeHacker, see alsohttp://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140813/Review_Track_your_stolen_laptop_for_free_with_Preyhttp://osxdaily.com/2011/05/17/track-stolen-laptop-prey/http://www.suntimes.com/technology/ihnatko/10467526-452/prey-takes-over-your-devices-to-keep-thieves-under-surveillance.htmlhttp://www.confused.com/home-insurance/articles/is-anti-theft-software-a-safe-way-to-protect-your-posessionshttp://www.securitymanagement.com/article/worth-a-look-prey-008354 Most of the arguments in the AfD proposal aren't reasons for deletion: who created the page doesn't affect its notability (the article may be mildly promotional but not so much as to be useless), and nor does what they country they are based in.  Are we supposed to refuse to cover any software from Chile?  It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide what software people should or shouldn't install; we should only provide the best information for them to decide, and the number of reviews available allows us to do that.  Absence of reliable sources in the article isn't itself grounds for deletion, as more sources are available.  The proposer should also explain which aspect of  this article is supposed to breach
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: spaced ndash}} per -REASON; the nomination is vague in referring to entire guideline and policy pages (WP:RS, WP:NOT) to qualify deletion, and a potential conflict of interest a contributor to the article may possess (or conversely, may not possess) is not grounds for outright deletion of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)