Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perimeter E-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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perimeter E-Security

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

Incomplete nomination by User:Mikefromnyc, who gave the reason: page is advertising for a "for profit" company, absolutely not encyclopedia material. The sourcing looks dubious, is largely non-independent, some links are dead, and the article is rife with marketing-speak. The latter two are not by themselves reasons for deletion, but we still need third-party sources for establishing notability.

I will also note that the AfD notice pointing to nowhere has remained in this article for six days. Clearly nobody seems interested in maintaining this article. Also not a reason for deletion, but well… this is embarrassing. Keφr 13:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The deadlinked findarticle references provide no clue from which to hunt them down. I can find only press releases or on of their staff being quoted like this. That's not sufficient to establish notability. Searches were conducted under all the various names listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2013 (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.