Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecuTech

:{{la|SecuTech}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|SecuTech}})

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. A [http://www.google.com/search?q=SecuTech&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=SecuTech&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=nws&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5e3eacb6af5a0521&biw=2400&bih=1103 Google News search] and a [http://www.google.com/search?q=SecuTech&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=SecuTech&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=kAdRTqCBJ9TTgQfai8mMBw&ved=0CBQQpwUoCg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5e3eacb6af5a0521&biw=2400&bih=1103 Google News Archive search] produce no articles of substantial coverage from reliable and independent sources. I've found several articles about a company called Bluestar SecuTech which doesn't appear to be related other than they both use a common abbreviation in their name (Security + Technology = SecuTech). OlYeller^Talktome 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Not a good sign when there are references for other companies in the article, but not the subject of the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Also note vague, unspecific, and non-neutral text: ...stated aim of providing security and privacy solutions to both consumers and enterprises. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - there are many informations about this company on magazines like MacTech, and the company's name is on the CeBIT exhibitor list 2010. This article has also removed the vague text, and unnecessary external links.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmm.leader (talk • contribs) 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Mmm.leader has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. The various accounts of this user have all been single purpose accounts concentrating on SecuTech, SecuTech Solution, and this AfD.
• Can you please provide links for this coverage? Also, the context is not as important at this point as the notability and their participation in a trade show is irrelevant unless the particular trade show somehow infers notability and I can't think of a single one that does off the top of my head. Maybe Electronic Entertainment Expo but I don't think it does. OlYeller^Talktome 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The current version is perhaps worse than the nominated version, and is an essay of original research containing general promotional musings on computing security:
  
  Introduction Financial industry refers to those enterprises operating special financial product, including banking, insurance, trust, securities industry, leasing industry and mortgage industry etc. With the application of network technology in the financial industry, people can enjoy more convenience brought by computer network, such as online banking and online security trading. But with this convenience, user information security is facing more severe challenges. Various network attack technologies result in economic losses to customers. As the fist user information security shield, if authentication is not strong enough, it will cause severe secure problem and economic loss. Current situation of financial transaction Transaction mode 1. OCT Customers go to counter and ask tellers to do their business directly. Customers have to present their ID and bank card to tellers and provide password to complete authentication and do business. . 2. Dedicated terminal Customers use dedicated terminal provided by financial institutions (ATM and POS) to process their transactions. Customers need to present credential card (bank card), customer ID and customer password to start independent transactions.
  
  This text may need to be checked for copyright issues as well. From the formatting, it seems cut and pasted. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that this version seems much worse than the nominated version. I've checked a few areas for a copyvio but haven't found anything. It doesn't change my !vote so I guess it doesn't matter at this point. The current perception of notability hasn't changed. OlYeller^Talktome 14:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I found nothing but this page online. At any rate, the current contents are not described well by the page title, either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, Only few companies' newses in this industry can be found, because only expensive software are using hardware dongle to protect their software and some of developers asks the dongle manufacturers put their companies logos on the device. But please judge a company just by if you can find news on google or yahoo new search engine. And after the company started branch in China, it has gained many reward form government, which cannot be searched from google, as there is no electronic version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.153.116 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - I didn't see anything on Google, Google News and Yahoo that wasn't affiliated with the company. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Now we have version 3. As far as its text, it is not bad at all. Turns out this business makes dongles for copy protection. (NOT providing security and privacy solutions to both consumers and enterprises. Dongles. Was it that bloody hard to get the word out?) I'm not sure that the references for version 3 (a press release, a trade show appearance, the Wikipedia article on dongle copy protection) are significant or independent enough to pass WP:GNG, but this version at least is informative and reasonably neutral, and that's what I care about most. If a few more independent references could be added, I would happily switch to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, companies in this industry usually are not so popular. Like Codemeter a very famous company in this industry, you cannot find news either. Because only some expensive software will use hardware dongle to protect their software. and the Rainbow technologies, which already has page on wiki. if you search it on http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=rainbow+technologies#sclient=psy&hl=en&newwindow=1&gl=us&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=rainbow+technologies&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f99187a0d71a0d71&biw=1366&bih=636/ google news, you cannot find and relative news either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.153.116 (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Popularity" isn't the same as notable which is how WP determines if a subject is to be included or not. As for there being other relative pages, that there's WP:OTHERSTUFF out there doesn't really matter when it comes to notability (sorry if that sounds harsh). OlYeller^Talktome 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, if it's not popular, then there are not so many media focus on it. you cannot find any news on google new is not so wired. even notalbe company alladin in this industry, you cannot find many news via google news. but please don't say aladdin is not notable. it used to be one of the largest in this industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeburst007 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This is Snakeburst007's only edit.
• I think you're confusing your notable with Wikipedia's notable. There's ways for an organization that's a major player in the industry to be notable per WP:ORG but that hasn't even been claimed let alone shown in either article. Regardless, this is a discussion about SecuTech's notability and nothing else. OlYeller^Talktome 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

*keep, Now, it seems that this article has been add several independent references, which from Wiki, and RSA, should meet the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeburst007 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

— Snakeburst007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::*Not a single reference has been added? What are you talking about? In case you haven't been notified, you're being investigated as a sockpuppet. OlYeller^Talktome 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

:*Note: I have struck out Snakeburst007's vote as a sockpuppet of Planet.Vici. Please see my talk page or SPI for further information. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - this article is heavily biased, and is pretty unencyclopedic. I don't see notability as the first three pages of a Google search for SecuTech all appear to be official websites.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - nn and spammy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Long on spam, short on facts. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

: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.