Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athena 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Athena Security

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I declined the speedy deletion because articles on computer security software are very difficult calls, and we've had a history of a lot of shady ones at Wikipedia, and a lot that weren't shady at all, but just didn't do the job promised and served only as advertisements. My impression is that the external links and references don't support the contention that this software is significant, or even necessarily does what is claimed, but you make the call. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No claim to notability in the article. Article has attracted edits from only the author, a WP:SPA user:Ezennse.

External links are:
 * 1. Subject's website
 * 2. Blog not wp:rs
 * 3. Blog not wp:rs indicating that the blogger was pitched to at RSA in 2008
 * 4-6. Article(s) that appears to be based on press release or promotional interview all with the same byline
 * 7-9. wp:or. Promotional material on subject's website
 * 10. Blog not wp:rs (by subject's CTO)

Refs are:
 * 1-3. Research purported to be exploited by the subject's product
 * 4. Not wp:rs (self-published)
 * 5-6. Ad copy

External sources seem to either not address subject specifically, or originated by subject (Hype not buzz). Paleking (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I start, I'll just mention WP:SK ground 1 and WP:BEFORE again... I still don't have the faintest idea why it should be okay to AfD something when the nominator hasn't searched for sources, considered the issues and made a good faith decision the article needs to be deleted. Where an admin declines speedy deletion, shouldn't it be the tagger rather than the admin who brings the matter to AfD?  I've watched the CSD talk page as requested and this still makes no sense to me whatsoever. Having said that, I agree with Paleking that this is a clear case of a company that fails WP:CORP—it's a common name, and there are several companies that show up on a search, none of which appear individually notable.  Since Paleking's response kills the speedy keep argument, I'm going to go with snow delete on notability grounds.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did what I said I did, clicking on all of the references given, and they didn't seem to me to support notability, but security software isn't something I know much about; that's why AfD was a better call than a speedy. The Google archives hits were Techtarget, channelweb, Experian and similar, and I didn't think they helped, either. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Agree with the quality of the sources; more importantly, this article is obvious advertising &mdash; The company's patent pending analysis algorithms offer deep insight into firewall behavior... &mdash; and contains what appears to be patches of pseudoscientific patent nonsense within its sales patter &mdash; Athena Security's basic algorithms are based on hypercube geometry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - article is promotional in nature. Notability of the company is not established through reliable sources.  A search turns up more than one "Athena Security" that plays in the network security space.  The only reliable source (not self-published or a press release) is this brief mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Whpq Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Ihcoyc. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2009 (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.