Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alert Logic


 * 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 no consensus. &mdash;Xyrael / 10:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Alert Logic


This article reads like and advertisement for a non-notable company. It doesn't show that the subject meets our notability guidelines. Unless it is rewritten from a neutral point of view with addition of notbality, it will be deleted as advertising. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sleepyhead 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Hello, based on your helpful feedback, I have added citations referring specifically to Alert Logic from three two of the top publications in the high tech world: Computerworld and eWeek. and CSO. From my understanding this meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Is this correct?
 * Should be Speedied This definitely meets the criteria for db-spam. Diez2 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also included attributed information about topics that are highly relevant to a wide audience.

The reason I was drawn to post a profile of Alert Logic is because I was researching the topic of Software as a Service and noted that there are 25 profiles of companies in this space with profiles on Wikipedia. I used them as a template for the Alert Logic profile but made an effort to focus on research and information about network security as opposed to product features. Thanks the advice on the notability guidelines. Any further help/advice would be most appreciated. Tallik 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keepI saw Alert Logic mentioned in ref 1 and ref 4. Ref 2 is broken ("Could not find" error message). ref 3 and ref 5 did not mention Alert Logic anywhere I could see. Ref 1, eweek, and Ref 4, Computerworld.com, seem like reasonable mainstream online and online/print, respectively, sources. This is weak support for notability, but probably enough. Edison 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for for the heads-up on the bad link on Ref 2. I'll fix that and work on including other souces that cite Alert Logic specifically. You are correct that the CSO article does not mention Alert Logic. Sorry for the mixup there. Tallik 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are now two three links that mention the company, though the Computerworld.com link isn't a third party/independent source as it just parrots the press release linked to in the article as "said in a statement." Unless a second truly independent link describing the company is given it doesn't meet notability guidelines. —WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Much work has gone into this article since I prodded it.—WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comment below.—WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tallik 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like an advert, maybe db-spam material. Also, sourcing of third-pary coverage is insufficient, per WAvegetarian. Sandstein 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Its an ad. Rever e ndG 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being quoted by eWeek and Computerworld establishes notability.  --Pkchan 07:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all for the helpful feedback. The Computerworld article is a bylined article based on an interview between the reporter and a company executive. It is not a press release. Computerworld would never, ever go for that. The Computerworld article is based in its entirety on information supplied by Alert Logic to the Computerworld reporter.   WAVegitarian did indeed give me the good advice to add some third party citations and that's what I did by adding the eWeek and Computerworld references. I will also link to several other citations as well. Thanks again!
 * I've added an additional citation to an article that was published in the Houston Business Journal about a $5 million round of Series B funding for the company.
 * Comment The interview seems not to have gone much past the press release that is referred to in the article. A bylined article like this isn't independent. With another truly independent source I would change to a weak keep. The article also needs to be rewritten to be expository rather than persuasive. The current form has a very nice persuasive essay structure of: what the company is and what it provides, why its products are vitally necessary, how the need is growing, specifics about the awesomeness of the product, concluding with a summary of the product and a brief note about further use and need. It is the "you need their services" tone that makes it read like an advetisement, alternating threats with protection services. The most recently added reference lifts a quote directly from a press release without attribution: "make that all-important leap from an early-stage company to being a real player in the IT security market." This is something that houston.bizjournals.com has done with a number of other Alert Logic press releases. Looking back at the eWeek article, it seems to be mostly "company/representative said..." I'm not going so far as to call either one trivial or not independent, but it isn't the strongest coverage I've seen. —WAvegetarian&bull;(talk) 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tallik 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  I've made some changes per your recommendations, WAvegitarian. I revised the article in an effort to be expository and non-promotional. I included an additional citation to CRN, a well-known national business publication. To me, the article in the Houston Business Journal is important because of the news that it contains: $5 million from well-known venture capital firms is "notable" news. Thanks again for your help and advice.

I'm struck by the broadness of the definition of sources considered adequate per the Wikipedia guidelines:
 * Definition of sources per Wikipedia

None of the citations for Alert Logic are "self-published." They are all by independent reporters from publications that have good reputations for accuracy and fact-checking. However, Wikipedia says that ....

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;

it is not contentious;

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.'' '''Tallik 16:00, 21 November 2006 (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.