Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SekChek Classic

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 SekChek Classic only.. No consensus about SekChek Local. People intend to work on it. Sandstein 12:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SekChek Classic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

SekChek Local: I am also nominating the following related pages because... both articles might appear to be WP:G4-able, based on the 2009 AfD.; SekChek Local (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)); Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The main article about this software was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SekChek. That was in 2009. If the SekChek article were to be recreated, then this article along with SekChek Local could be redirected there. In 2018 it still appears the 2009 outcome was prescient: aside from the company's own website, the only significant internet footprint of the product and the company appear to be press releases. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If to be kept I assume we would all choose a merge not both unless further information comes to light. I have seen passing mentions from Deloitte(now found that is not independent) and others that look authoritative. I have found [this article] which at first glance looks good. From the earlier AfD we have a trade mention and a passing network world trade mention. At this moment I am leaning towards some form of merge following my brief scan. As against that these may have been an attempt to bypass AfD ... albeit perhaps good faith from a product angle rather than corporate angle ... ?. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I note that on the SekChek website there is a 20 March 2018 notice that reads "20 March 2018 - NOTICE OF SEKCHEK’S CLOSURE ON 31 MAY 2018: We regret to advise you that after more than 20 years in business, SekChek IPS will cease operations on 31 May 2018." If this AFD discussion moves towards an informal re-discussion of the 2009 deletion - and it can - that the company appears to be defunct and is no longer able to support its products is not a reason for deletion. The question to be answered would then appear to me be: "looking at this in 2018, does the now defunct company SekChek meet WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and so on? The existence of articles SekChek Classic and SekChek Local would appear to me contingent on an answer to that question. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we have some reasonable agreement on the notabilty of SekChek in general I think I may be willing to do a fairly bold rewrite on SekChek Local with the intention of moving it without redirect to SekChek leaving SekChek Classic to be deleted. I would avoid a Merge as that leaves attribution issues and the redirects hanging about. I'd want some good faith about the notability to avoid such effort being immediately deleted. One bad point is I can find no other party have used to the closure press release! I dont want to see the original article as that again can cause attribution issues.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination both promotional texts, created by a special-purpose unit. Perhaps hard work was involved but whatever. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As suggested before I have decided I will begin a somewhat very brutal rewrite of the Sekchek local article, re-orientating it SekChek and using existing references.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (SekChek local only On reworked version. ; and with the intention this be moved to SekCheck without leaving a redirect) One issue at this moment is 3 of 4 original references suitable for notability have link rotted and seem insufficiently specified to locate the original reference. Rizal et. al. Jurnal Informatika, Vol. 14, No. 2, Desember 2014 and A (strictly confidential?) Cairngorm national park paper. I'm currently working the article (slowly) and both 21 October 2018 and current need to be viewed as someone could object to my amendments.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:56, 7 November 2018 (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.