Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymmetria


 * 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. ansh 666 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cymmetria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article had a WP:PROD but it was removed by a SPA so I am copying the PROD reasoning here:

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP not found. Recently graduated from Y Combinator startup accelerator, which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. Created by Special:Contributions/Thedm with no other contributions outside this topic. Article cited to routine corporate news, funding announcements and WP:SPIP sources, such as Y Combinator itself. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Insufficient reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC) -- And what's with the See also list?
 * Delete -- confirming my PROD above. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 01:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 01:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 01:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. borderline ntoability and clear promotionalism, which = delete.  DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep.This page now shows that the company has been featured in multiple legitimate news sources/publications, confirming WP:GNG and disproving WP:SPIP, this includes Infosecurity Magazine, Dark Reading, and Business Insider. Additionally, the company has made multiple important strides in innovation for cybersecurity, being the first the use a commercial deception product to capture a targeted threat - which was covered widely across the industry - proving it is not simply an advertisement. 07:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.91.7 (talk • contribs)
 * — 162.212.91.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep.The list of sources has been further fleshed out to include all relevant and notable company converage, thus eliminating WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP as issues. 09:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allijfried (talk • contribs)
 * — Allijfried (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep.Recent edits to the page show that there is plenty of relevant coverage on the company and its achievements from a wide variety of reputable and verifiable sources, therefore countering the WP:TOOSOON argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annatw96 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * — Annatw96 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment -- looks like this AfD has been attacked by SPAs... K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect the SPAs are more likely footwear. Ifnord (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as failing WP:NCORP. Ifnord (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Depth of coverage is limited to related business sources, and promotional. WP:GNG states: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and that is just not evident on a Google search. The article is also referenced by the company website concerning "security operating center" (ActiveSOC or ISOC) content against WP:ORGIND. More than one reference uses only passing mention, and some unreferenced content "Since its inception, Cymmetria has been recognized multiple times by the global cyber security company for its innovation.", is either WP:OR or WP:synthesis. Content "Globes named Cymmetria one of Israel's 16 most promising startups in 2016", proves existance among many and not notability. We have a company article that is just an indiscriminant company profile listing. Otr500 (talk)
 * Additional comments: This is just an internet security startup company, of which there are many. A long list (only partial): Illusive Networks Ltd., TrapX Security Inc., Arctic Wolf, Arxan, Awake Security, BitGlass, Carbon Black, Claroty, Crowdstrike, Cybereason, Cylance, Deep Instinct, DuoSecurity, Druva, Forescout, Illusive, Microsoft, Netskope, Okta, PAS, Perch, SecurityPhantom, Qadium, Recorded Future, ShiftLeft, Stratozen, Strayspark Lab, Swimlane (Phoenix DataSecurity), ThreatConnect, ThreatStack, and Vectra. The vast majority of these are recent startups, and notability sourcing is almost exclusively limited to the tech-business reporting world, that make their money advertising for these companies. Pick any one and Google "(name) + cyber-security". We already have a fairly new orphan article Deep Instinct and others like Fidelis Cybersecurity, Accumuli Security (orphan stub), and Impermium (2014 orphan stub survived AFD with a comment "We can make exceptions when it helps the reader". Most articles like these, and the can of worms allowed because other stuff exists serve no real purpose but dictionary listing of companies. *Many of the "sources", like Cision or Tech Insider, or TechCrunch just provides company press release information that does not support notability.
 * Creating these company profile type articles, where notability is limited to one field just adds relatively unknown corporate listing articles to Wikipedia, and of those that are not bought out, the vast majority will just sit around as a stub article never making the level of Fortinet. They are more often than not (like this one), incubated startup companies, sources often just brag of the "millions" of new cash they raise, and they are generally not "worthy of notice". However, if some closing admin thinks Wikipedia needs these I have provided a long list of other not notable companies we could then add. Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 22 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.