Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberSafe


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

CyberSafe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is not about the specific subject, and gives no evidence of notability for it; rather, the contents is a general article on computer encryption., of which we have adequate coverage.

We've usually regarded this sort of writing as promotional, because its only real purpose  is to introduce an otherwise unsupported article under the name of the product    DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: Agree with  DGG, this "article" is a WP:ADVERT. While the concept of a digital vault does exist, this article is just trying to push one implementation. -- BenTels (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Disagree. There's a lot of good research here. I think this article should be improved, not deleted. Limemine (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article has a great references section and is well-written. The article should stay. Unhmba (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Unhmba (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Keep. Agree with  Limemine, this article is well-researched and factual but needs improvement. It meets notability req because of interest from academic, legal, and investment communities. Bioengineer+attorney (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioengineer+attorney (talk • contribs) Bioengineer+attorney (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There does seem to be some fluff in the article about encryption, but there are plenty of independent and reliable sources out there for it. I was on the fence but did a search through HighBeam and found these: Computergram International, American Banker, [American Banker - CyberSafe Raises $21 Million, Network World, Software Magazine, Seattle Post, New Age Media. There were 152 hits (I am sure that some of them are not related to this article but the majority appear to be related). [[user:MalcomMarcomb11376]]
 * Keep Appears informative and soundly written. I would say off to a good start, maybe trim some fat, but well with-in the WP:GNG guidelines -- ‎Jetijonez  Fire!  21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It is an advert, with copy primarily based on the generalized subject rather than the actual topic, to pad up the sources. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional and lacking notability. Appears that this article was created only to showcase a company logo and website.  CyberSafe software is only mentioned a couple of times in the article; the rest of the article is accurate information about data encryption in general, not about CyberSafe software.  Other than primary sources, the citations don't mention CyberSafe software and definitely don't support its notability.  MalcomMarcomb, every link you provided is about CyberSafe Corporation of Issaquah, WA; that is NOT the same as CyberSafe Ltd headquartered in Longford, Middlesex, UK with an office in Atlanta, GA, USA, the company distributing the software that is  and the company whose logo and web site are featured in this artice. DocTree (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doctree's compelling analysis. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2012 (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.