Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TextBEAST

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kur ykh 07:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TextBEAST

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software; neither shows nor asserts any evidence of notability Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to even assert notability. Blodance the Seeker 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find notability. Haakon (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two cited independent reviews are enough for me (and both are really reviews, not simply notices). LotLE×talk 00:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources given aren't significant. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This software does what they claim. The support you get with this company is phenomenal! I have never experienced a company that exhibits as good customer service as ASBware LLC does. They evaluate any & all of your improvement ideas and then prioritize accordingly. They implement fixes for even very minute issues but first do extensive testing so as to not cause any other problems. I am not affiliated with ASBware in any way but have used textBEAST for some time. Thought this quick note may put others minds at ease. Any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask. --SilverSurfer2 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)— SilverSurfer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

SPA tagged. Aside from that, the performance of the company and/or the soft is irrelevant to its/their notability. Blodance the Seeker 05:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable? Definitely....textbeast has been reviewed by Cnet editors at download.com, one of the biggest download blogs/sites out there (The domain download.com attracted at least 113 million visitors annually by 2008 according to a Compete.com study) and has been downloaded by thousands of individuals on that site alone receiving a four star rating from both editor and users: http://download.cnet.com/textBEAST-clipboard/3000-2384_4-10766463.html?tag=mncol Also, it has been featured on Softpedia, Giveaway of the Day, Tucows, Brothersoft, AlternativeTo.net,etc., all software sites with large readership. I am not affiliated with TextBeast, but I have been a user for a very long time. The program is notable in that it is UNIQUE in the market as being a click to type clipboard manager, versus many of the other ones that only allow you to assign hotkeys to textstrings. Further, I think the mention on download.com by the editorial staff alone proves it is a notable software.Superrrman (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC) — Superrrman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.