Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeLogic

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. The IP editor has a WP:COI and everybody else is in favor of deletion. Sandstein 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SafeLogic

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

Obvious commissioned work excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. In addition to failing that policy which is equal to the general notability guideline, it also fails the sourcing criteria: it has been reference bombed, but the sources are either non-RS (Forbes contributors are bloggers), are not about the specific company, are passing coverage, or are non-independent sourcing excluded by WP:SPIP and WP:ORGIND. WP:BEFORE search just shows more of the same. This should be deleted for failing both points of WP:N: it is outside of our scope as it is an advertisement, and it lacks the sourcing needed to demonstrate importance. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I actually work at SafeLogic. This was not a commissioned page, but we were certainly flattered by its creation. We support the Wikipedia guidelines fully, but we're puzzled at why this page would be flagged and not others (including smaller, less notable companies/products in the same industry). The fact that the page is about a company shouldn't inherently make it an advertisement... We'd be happy to submit additional information/references/etc for sourcing, but we have respectfully stayed on the sidelines. No, we don't have as long and as illustrious history as Apple or Samsung, but in the encryption and certification world, we're kind of a big deal, so while we encourage edits, deletion would be foolhardy. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but there is simply no way this article was created by a brand new editor with no connection to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know the editor or their history, so we're in the same boat - we can only speculate. I also don't know you or your history. As far as the actual content of the entry, I spent some time reviewing pages of other companies in our niche and other related technologies, and it seems (to a non-editor) like ours is comparable in content and references. That said, we certainly welcome edits to the page. I would also invite you to do some research on SafeLogic, our technology, and our standing in the industry. As I mentioned above, we've been around a while and are notable within our community. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have. Your company fails our inclusion standards based on sourcing, as noted above, and very likely paid for this article as spam to promote yourselves. That other competitors that are not as important as you are on Wikipedia suggests that we should be deleting them as well, not that we should keep you. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the article was paid, don't you think there would be more sources cited, instead of not enough? You're suggesting that pages of notable companies and products be deleted instead of revised and expanded. I don't think that's in the spirit of Wikipedia, and frankly, it doesn't seem like you have enough knowledge in this industry sector to be making those judgment calls and contradicting what other editors have already contributed. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and I can't locate any sources that are anywhere close to meeting the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoWorld, GCN Magazine, and FedScoop are listed in references. Why do those not meet the standard? 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't cover the company in any depth. Rentier (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly objectively exceeds WP:CORPDEPTH definition of trivial coverage, hence multiple references establish notability even without subjectively deep coverage. Again, as stated above, I welcome edits rather than rash deletion. 2600:1700:9980:A780:207F:B028:C8C2:F95F (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To me its more of a notability issue than a spam issue. I would gladly do a quick cleanup of the page, but the problem is there is nothing in-depth that I can use to cite on the page. Basically, needs deleted for failing to meet WP:NCORP. I would also advise the creator to either wait for a volunteer editor to create the page once the company is notable, or list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2018 (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.