Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BridgeHead Software

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. –MuZemike 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BridgeHead Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable. No assertion of notable, Refs are all own references or directory/ YouTube refs and three give 404 errors. No independent citation. Small back office software supplier  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree, keep. Broken links should be fixed and notability is not in doubt - eg see this article [8] in The Register which says that "[Dell person] reckons the Bridgehead software leads the medical archive industry." Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2011 (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.