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.
This page appears to be hype for a product. A review of the product's webpage does not substantiate the claims made, especially the claim of superiority over continuous SSL sessions. I therefore suggest deletion.
I of course also support deletion on the grounds that the company or service has little or no notability. Google finds no trace of third-party coverage
[1][2]. The article is a blatant advertisement.
Pascal.Tesson15:37, 2 September 2006 (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.
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.
This page appears to be hype for a product. A review of the product's webpage does not substantiate the claims made, especially the claim of superiority over continuous SSL sessions. I therefore suggest deletion.
I of course also support deletion on the grounds that the company or service has little or no notability. Google finds no trace of third-party coverage
[1][2]. The article is a blatant advertisement.
Pascal.Tesson15:37, 2 September 2006 (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.