Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-Trance 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N-Trance Security

Delete as it fails WP:CORP and is advertisment. Taken as a contrested prod as author struck out my reasoning in the prod tag. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and its 150 ghits. --David Mestel^(Talk) 15:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a new editor, I would like to apologise for the mistakes and probable contradiction with rules. I have edited the article after it was suggested for deletion and removed all the information that could look like advertisment. If it is necessary, I am ready to remove most of it. Kindly keep this article, and if it is possible, advise which improvements and/or changes are necessary to comply with regulations. --Eugene Cuprin 10:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The editor has been up to the same shenanigans in N-Tegrity, and went so far as to create separate pages for two of the company's products ([1], [2]) and to link to them from Disk encryption software and Password manager. A Eugene Cuprin has been involved with data security software professionally. I cannot believe that this is anything but what it plainly appears to be: a shameless advertisement. VoiceOfReason 19:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• To the VoiceofReason - professional involvement into the described matter is not a reason for deletion. On the contrary, shall demonstrate the proficiency of an author. Links to ([1], [2]) are reasonable from the methodological point of view. Audience is offered limited information on some software, while other ([1], [2])information is banned. I do not object deletion of my other articles that could probably look like advertisement. However these two ([1], [2]) are pure information, checked and verified --Eugene Cuprin 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The improvements that need to be made are to provide reliable sources that prove the company meets WP:CORP. In addition the articles need to be copyedited to read like an encyclopedia article and not a fact sheet. The product articles should be deleted as a matter of course if the company is judged non-notable (as non-notable products of a non-notable corp). Yomangani 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - my remark on your professional involvement was intended to bolster the case that this is a pure advertisement. Or do you categorically deny that you have any involvement with or financial stake in n-Trance Security, Inc? I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you call your spamvertising links to N-Crypt and N-Pass correct from a "methodological point of view." What method are we talking about, here? As for the "pure information" content of those articles, it doesn't matter how often they're checked and verified, they're still not in the least bit notable per WP:SOFTWARE and do not merit encyclopedia articles. Regarding articles on competing products, the proper solution is to delete those articles, too, if they also do not meet WP:SOFTWARE VoiceOfReason 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yomangani 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pre nom. Typical self-interest editing pattern. JonHarder 20:43, 8 August 2006 (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.