Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aveksa

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 redirect to RSA Security. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aveksa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Software company that seems to fail WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, only promotional press releases and market reports. Article is a mess of promotional material anyway, so I wouldn't mind a WP:TNT rationale. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RSA Security where its acquisition in 2013 is included as a list item in the History section. A news article here described the position of this firm at the point of its acquisition but is still ultimately driven by the takeover announcement. I am not seeing a strong rationale or sources to maintain a distinct article; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 01:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The available sources largely either cover the subject as an RSA product or cover the acquisition. The article is also very promotional and would largely need to be rewritten to be encyclopedic anyway. Hut 8.5 11:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since no better sources can be created after the aquisition by EMC in 2013. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2020 (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.