Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkmarx

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. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmarx

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

This page is an advertisement for non notable company. It's been written by User:Adarw, which his name is, according to his user page, Adar Weidman. Apparently, he is an employe of this company. Most of the references used in the article links to Checkmarx's website, it's partner - Security innovation's website, its investors website, and to press releases. Xodlop (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion A7 for an article about a company that has no assertion of notability. Also the WP:NPOV issues just shoot up like rockets. --Shirik (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not quite sure I see a speedy deletion candidate here, but it doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP at any rate. Not to mention WP:COI problems, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, average non-notable software company. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, this does look like an advertisement, but it's not quite blatant. JIP | Talk 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Problems with promotional language can be solved by editing, so that doesn't require deletion. The problem is the lack of coverage for this company in reliable sources. There appears to be a small amount of coverage (e.g., this), but not enough to demonstrate notability. If the company is successful it may become notable in the future, but I don't think it is there today. --RL0919 (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2009 (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.