Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Security


 * 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 keep arguments have not addressed the concern about lack of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Beyond Security

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Borderline spam; little to no evidence of notability, and lots of product information. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that it doesn't seem to have decent sourcing which could be used to improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Jim  Car  ter  11:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Jim  Car  ter  11:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete spammy, and too many of the claimed references don't even mention the company (when they're not dead links) - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Being quoted for a sound bite doesn't count as notable independent coverage. This article looks like it was added at a time when WP had looser enforcement of notability. Jergling (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. To the extent that the company is mentioned in the offered references at all, it is almost exclusively because the article quotes Gadi Evron as a cybersecurity expert. Notability is not inherited, so even if there was deemed sufficiently nontrivial coverage of Evron to make him notable, that wouldn't confer notability on Beyond Security (especially since many of the news agencies are probably interviewing Evron on the basis of his prior position with the Israeli government). I haven't had much luck finding appropriate sources that directly address the company itself. The closely related SecuriTeam article is as problematic, if not more so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not delete It is hard to understand most of the presented comments here. Reductionism and issue conflation seem to be omnipresent. For example the word "spam" has a clear definition in the security industry and even among common people. It is used liberally without regard to the meaning. Moreover, while it is reasonable to point out marketing material, it is not OK to fault a company for simply explaining what they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:322E:6980:287E:41C5:22E5:39C7 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not delete more up-to-date external links have been added. In the next few days we will refresh the company's description, it is considered as one of the leaders in the security testing space and a contributor to open source projects. The company has a real impact on the security research field as well.
 * It's not really about whether the company does useful work, so much as whether they meet the criteria laid out in WP:CORP and WP:GNG for notability. It's often the case that a company doing a lot of useful work will receive coverage in reliable 3rd party sources, and when that happens, an article about the company (with context, rather than just an overview of the fact that the company exists and carries on business) can happen.  FalconK (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO; product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2016 (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.