Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaforic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. J04n(talk page) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Metaforic
- Metaforic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
all references provided are press releases. no independent third party references provided. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: Our technology is proven in millions of deployed instances, from consumer deployments through to business devices. Metaforic solutions directly prevent any change to code or data by automatically adding real time security to code that is to be protected. 'References' are to routine announcements of funding and press releases, and do not establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as pure unadulterated WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete; insufficient significant coverage found of subject from non-primary reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Subject has received passing mention in reliable sources, however most are PR releases and are not considered when determining notability. The BBC has written an article regarding the subject, but one article does not make multiple reliable sources. Although the article clearly falls under WP:NOTADVERT, AfD is not a tool to repair articles, nor should sermountable issues be a reason for deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2013 (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.