Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anubisnetworks

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anubisnetworks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, and advert tag in place since Dec. 2014. Most information is unsourced. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - blatant advert and bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- reads like an ad for the company, no substance or indication of notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I quite frankly consider this speedy material because the only nearly significant claims are "best known for....", that's hardly convincing especially when fused with the other blatant information, which is going to specifics about the company and its business, and then the equally PR sourcing. None of this is improvable and nor should it be if it's all PR-based for a company interested with PR. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Predominantly a WP:SPA article on a firm which has now been acquired by another (which has no article, so no redirect target). Apart from the acquisition announcement and a previous PR piece about participating with other firms in a security action, I am finding little beyond a brief mention in a multi-product review [1]. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged as advert for two years, seems enough time. Bitsight might get an article some day, but do not see any worthwhile material here to merge. W Nowicki (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.