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. There seems to be rough consensus that the article as it currently stands fails CORP. Once created, a redirect to Graphical password is justified with perhaps a brief mention of this technology there. Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passmap[edit]

Passmap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article for non-notable technology from defunct startup. No references at all covering the core topic of the article, no evidence the technology ever was in any way notable. Article created by user:Adam.kornafeld (cf http://patents.justia.com/inventor/adam-kornafeld), whose only contibutions are to promote this company; no other editor has made substantive contributions to the article, and it is an orphan. The company fails WP:CORP, and I can't find any evidence of significant independent coverage that would come anywhere close to WP:GNG. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Significant coverage in several academic papers -> http://ijisme.org/attachments/File/v1i5/E0222041513.pdf, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513, http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1962 and I am sure there are more. Sadads (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these citations has anything to do with this company or their specific technology. Merely typing a word into a search engine and counting how many hits it returns, without showing that they are actually relevant, shows nothing - per WP:GOOGLETEST. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:PRODUCT, but as the sources provided by Sadads suggest, there is a notable topic of which this is an example. To that end I started Draft:Graphical password. It's pretty rough now, but there are tons of sources available and we only have a redirect to password currently. I don't have more time to work on it right now, but it's possible Passmap will merit a brief mention there, in which case a redirect would be justified. Until then, though, I'd have to go with delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For those so inclined to check it out, note the several as-yet-unused sources hidden in an html comment at Draft:Graphical password. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and prune per the sources listed by Sadads (talk · contribs), which demonstrate that "passmap" as a topic is notable.

  The lead of the article says:

  Passmap /ˈpæsmæp/ is an image based method used for authentication, similar to passwords. The word passmap originates from the word password by substituting word with map. Passmap is a patented technology of Hydrabyte, Inc.

  I agree that Hydrabyte's technology is not notable, but I think the concept itself is notable, so perhaps this can be saved by deleting everything except the first sentence of the article, which can be sourced to http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513. Also, I would support a redirect of this topic to the article eventually created from Draft:Graphical password. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and prune. Article can coexist with a graphical password article. I copy edited first sentence of this article to mention term "graphical password", ready to link. Rest of article, especially headings, is unencyclopedic writing and needs to be pruned. Prhartcom (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (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.