Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scitlabs


 * 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   speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

===Scitlabs===


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Total advertisement for a non-notable software. CSD removed by an IP, so brought it here. Can't find any reliable sources that mention this in anything more than the most trivial of coverage. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 10:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (WP:CSD_A7 and WP:CSD_G11) You can find some articles about the university research by searching for "Self Cleansing Intrusion Tolerance", which is what SCIT aparrently stands for (even though the article never tells you). However, I could find nothing to indicate that the Company is in any way notable and the article is clearly purely promotional. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Company appears to have won an award - |The Security Technologies of Tomorrow Challenge (2010). This may be sufficient to prevent speedy deletion on the grounds of notability, but the spam concern remains. That award appears to be related to the notable Global Security Challenge, but appears to be more of a "best of the rest" consolation prize. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete speedy or not, as blatant advertising. The tone is entirely promotional; no independent sources; entirely from SCIT's POV. One minor award won't be enough to make this notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as advertising for non-notable company. My search for reliable sources got one non-trivial hit, and even that reads like a press release. The text of the article suggests that it was lifted from somewhere, but I can't find the source to prove copyvio. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, spam and pretty obvious copypaste, although I can't find the source. Hairhorn (talk) 20:47, 5 February 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.