Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neokey

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. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neokey

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

Non-notable product. Proposed deletion declined by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11, which says that "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" get speedily deleted. Using Google Translate from Portuguese to English, this article's entire text is

"The NeoKey Neoprot was developed by Computer Technology Ltd, a company based in Sao Paulo Brazil, the NeoKey is a small USB device (similar to a stick) that acts as a key to run the software, or if you are logged in NeoKey a USB port on the protected software works normally, but if not connected NeoKey the protected software does not work.

"The NeoKey is driverless, like a USB mouse or keyboard, and allows different products to license independently, and also has the model NeoKey Net +, which can be shared using a single hardware for up to 255 stations simultaneously on a local network ."

The article is entirely unsourced, reads like a brochure rather than an encyclopedia article, and makes no claim to notability. That it's not in English doesn't help its case. CityO fSilver 18:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy for all the blatantly obvious reasons. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:11, 10 December 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.