Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armorize Technologies


 * 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. And salt.  Sandstein  06:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Armorize Technologies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable tech business. References provided are inclusions on unreachable product category surveys, or trivial press releases announcing financing or co-ventures. This has been speedily deleted four times as blatant advertising or as a business with no minimal showing of importance. Google News hits seem to be press releases announcing financing, security alerts, and mentions in stories about trade show appearances. Taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. Financing announcements dealing with millions of dollars should not be dismissed as trivial. The InfoWorld article is not a listing of all the exhibitors at DemoWorld, but rather (in its words) "the startup companies that could change your work life", which sounds like notability to me. Reports by companies such as Forrester Research, Inc. are reliable sources, although Forrester's report only mentions the company as one of several vendors with certain capabilities -- Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - From our perspective, press releases about financing deals don't show enough importance to make a business notable, even if "trivial" was a poor choice of words. Every business that gets that kind of capital does not become an encyclopedia subject automatically. The InfoWorld article is indeed telling: it's about a "startup company" that "could change" an aspect of online security; this suggests only that they might be notable in the future, but may not be yet.  Investment reports may be reliable sources, but the businesses and researchers that write them are driven by customer demand, rather than an editorial judgment of significance.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - getting funded by Venture capitalists is a good thing for a startup, but it doesn't establish notability, especially when that coverage is self-generated through press releases. There is no significant coverage about the cmpany to establish notability.  The Infoworld article is one of those show roundups and isn't that significant. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The InfoWorld article provides insignificant coverage of Armorize Technologies, and a Google News Archive search returns only press releases and passing mentions. This company fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, routine coverage given this firm is not enough to establish notability. Article also doesn't explain why this company is of encyclopedic interest. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:31, 17 November 2009 (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.