Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircloak


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Aircloak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The company has not received enough significant independent coverage in reliable sources; most of what I could find (and indeed, including the sources in the article) are press releases, promotional sites, directory profiles, or passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Yup, pretty much. WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH exclude all the sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not ready enough to have its own article. I would suggest moving to draft for the time being as the company might further expand in the near future. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree. Unlikely that will happen in the next six months, and it's vaguely promotional. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP.  References are press releases or routine coverage.  Slideshow Bob (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added four new unbiased, reputable sources. I believe this article should not be deleted because the technology is very relevant ahead of the coming GDPR regulations. It is very similar to the page Privacy Analytics. Lelascottmacneil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - provided sources are: 1) Forbes source: this is just an opinion piece by an external contributor. 2) Computerwoche: passing mention. 3) Politico: passing mention. 4) cpomagazine: self-promotion by the founder. 5) peru21.pe - passing mention in promotional context. 6) cisco press release - press releases are not independent sources. 7) www.derbrutkasten.com - PR platform with the stated goal to "support the Austrian startup scene" (per their about page). On a sidenote, Privacy Analytics is a bad role model here - the article is full of likely COI-written nonsense and needs work (or maybe even an AfD) as well. GermanJoe (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2017 (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.