Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trusted Encrypted File (TEF)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Trusted Encrypted File (TEF)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sourced completely to a single website where the creator of the page has likely COI. The website itself is not a reliable source. I could not find anything independent in a Google search with this term and therefore cannot establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Added three reliable sites/sources proving their patent on this technology that outputs this formate (TEF).

User:Therobmilne (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2017 (EST)
 * Hi . Just my opinion and I am only one editor, but everything you added today is specific to the company itself, not the topic of the page. Are you able to provide sources other than the company website that talk about the topic? Also, can you review the conflict of interest notice left on your talk page in January last year and make the appropriate disclosures if applicable? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly is an advertisement for one company's technology. This article violates so many style guidelines (starting with the title - we do not put acronyms at the end like that in titles) it is beyond a rescue. Doing a google search on the company all I find is its founder Nandini Jolly doing the usual self-promotion.  Her personal article is also up for deletion since it is also very promotional and badly cited. I notice very few dates are given, so another argument is that it is too soon to meet notability requirements. Things seem to start in 2014 or so? Maybe some day a well-cited article on the combined person, her company, and a very short mention of the company file format, might work. But these are below the threshold in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and User:W Nowicki, fails WP:CORP. Blatant promotional content, mostly self references. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 15 March 2017 (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.