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 keep. — Aitias // discussion 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browsealoud[edit]

A user blocked indef for promoting similar software pointed to this article, and lo and behold he was right. No sources for claims of notability. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability, no sources of any kind to back up the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Keep per the first two links provided by Joe Chill (though the first one is somewhat weak and reads like a PR piece. This link, though, is a blog and likely can't be used to establish notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Public Technology link appeared in a Google News search so it is reliable. A WebProNews link is in the article and a link that says that the software won an award is also. Joe Chill (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per this, this, this, and more. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reception section, an external link, and a link that says that the software won a major award. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vital technology - take out all of the sales-type commentary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[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.