Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReSec Technologies

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. MER-C 06:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReSec Technologies

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

Everything listed is literally what only they would advertise about themselves and this includes the sheer fact it goes to specifics about its funding and financials, the fact the awards are so trivial as "Companies not yet notable" and we all know that certainly means enough; the sources found are then literally published-republished PR and also then overfocus with the company's own financial specifics once again; it's clear this only exists as a business listing hence WP:NOT applies since we make no compromises with such sheer blatancy at all. It's quite clear someone involved or otherwise influenced by the company itself started this considering the "services" section is in fact the largest, therefore we have all that's needed to delete as advertising. To state the obvious, not one single source is in fact substantial as it's all still literally publishes and republished company words. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but also WP:DEL4 may apply. Eric-Wester (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. awards for "emerging technology firm" are a sound indication of NOT YET NOTABLE We'll cover it when it emerges into notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previously mentioned reasons and WP:TOOSOON. Moaz786 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear to meet WP:NCORP and I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the sources. Mkdw ^talk 07:35, 24 December 2016 (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.