Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrast Security

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast Security

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

Disputed prod of a company with zero evidence of WP:CORP notability; cited sources are all either press releases or passing mentions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:NCORP. Can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Almost eligible for CSDA7. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly likely no further coverage to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. Only cites that mention the company at all are firstly a trade newsletter that has republished what is obviously the company's own press release, and secondly a patent office record. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notoriety. Curro2 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (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.