- 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. North America 1000 01:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Blue Lance
- Blue Lance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacking notability. There's virtually no significant coverage of this company anywhere. --Falcon Darkstar Momot ( talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable corporation. Not much to say, they are a small it security company. They fail WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH in all points. There are not really any reliable sources out there which gave them significant coverage. There are a few short news blurbs and press releases here and there, but nothing of significance which could satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a little bit on their LT Auditor+ product in older computer mags, but its again just some routine release mentions/overviews which would not warrant an article for the company. Dead Mary ( talk) 18:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete bad sourcing in article, couldn't find convincing sourcing elsewhere - David Gerard ( talk) 18:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the sources offered are literally simply PR and republished PR, none of it lists information that actually matters for an article, and it's certainly not substantial; it's clear this article was only existing to showcase what there was to say about the company, and that's not what's acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- A7 material and the only purpose for this article to exist is to promote the company and its products. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:12, 7 October 2016 (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.
- 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. North America 1000 01:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Blue Lance
- Blue Lance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacking notability. There's virtually no significant coverage of this company anywhere. --Falcon Darkstar Momot ( talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable corporation. Not much to say, they are a small it security company. They fail WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH in all points. There are not really any reliable sources out there which gave them significant coverage. There are a few short news blurbs and press releases here and there, but nothing of significance which could satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a little bit on their LT Auditor+ product in older computer mags, but its again just some routine release mentions/overviews which would not warrant an article for the company. Dead Mary ( talk) 18:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete bad sourcing in article, couldn't find convincing sourcing elsewhere - David Gerard ( talk) 18:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the sources offered are literally simply PR and republished PR, none of it lists information that actually matters for an article, and it's certainly not substantial; it's clear this article was only existing to showcase what there was to say about the company, and that's not what's acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- A7 material and the only purpose for this article to exist is to promote the company and its products. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:12, 7 October 2016 (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.