Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SekChek

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SekChek

Non-notable computer company and/or product. Prod tag removed by an IP who claimed to have made changes to show notability. These changes (unremarkably) did not involve adding any secondary sources. Joey the Mango (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Probable conflict of interest (based on tone of article) and would need severe rewrite to stop sounding like a press release (including getting rid of that Clickpress.com reference since that site IS nothing but press releases). I have little doubt it's a fine product, but can't find any real authoritative third party references (handful of newswire references of no real note). --Quartermaster (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional links and revamped the references section. Hopefully that satisfies the masses. I do not wish to have the article deleted as 1) I created the article 2) i will improve it over time.--Kelly2kelly (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2009 (UT

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fits the profile, a "software and services company that develops automated computer security auditing tools and provides information security assurance services". No references outside the trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Don't know if I have to weigh in on this re-listing since I recommended delete originally ... but just in case: Not notable outside the trade. I know it's a losing battle to prune wikipedia from articles like this, but every little bit helps. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to state delete again. I've stricken the !vote. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient reliable sources covering the subject to establish notability. Of the list of references provided in the article, only a couple would qualify as reliable sources. [1] is a trade magazine article which focuses solely on the product which is good. [2] is a mention in a trade magazine. Although more than a single sentence, it is also far from substantial. Given the totality of coverage found, this is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:13, 29 May 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.