Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SubRosaSoft.com Inc.
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
— User:A, 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORP (Wikipedia:Notability)