Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrowdStrike


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Seems like there were some sources that were not included in the creation. The POV issues has also been resolved. --   LuK3      (Talk)   20:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

CrowdStrike

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It seems like this company is non-notable as per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I only see a few secondary sources containing coverage of this company. Most articles are from the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack back in late 2014. --   LuK3      (Talk)   19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Changed: barring presentation of reliable secondary sources asserting the notability of this company, there's nothing to go on here. It would appear the creator of the article is trying to edit war advert off of the article, which is not a good sign. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to no opinion either way; a bit on the fence here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as basically G11 material too, this and the questionability for notability are enough to delete of course. It's newly founded and only localized, nothing else to suggest convincingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  00:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:G11. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Comment I've edited it for WP:NPOV, since the article creator preferred repeatedly removing the advert tag to actually fixing the article. I hope the article cam now be evaluated on the basis of notability rather than spamminess. OnionRing (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I've now added several WP:RS giving significant coverage of the company., , , , can I persuade you to rethink on this? OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Should this page be deleted. It appears they now have reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.239.11 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – The article was copy edited after the nomination for deletion, and presently does not have a promotional tone. The article is neutrally worded and simply provides an overview of the company at this time. The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples that provide significant coverage about it are listed below. North America1000 02:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times
 * Tech Republic
 * Fortune
 * Network World
 * Network World
 * Fortune (1:03 length video news report)


 * 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.