Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JASK Labs


 * 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.  So Why  07:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

JASK Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, no major coverage. User's contributions are very interesting, possible sock farm. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

JASK Labs is a well-respected startup company that has some innovative technology. They are expected to make an impact in the emerging security analytics space. I would suggest retaining this entry (although the entry can be improved). Joergvader (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * JASK Labs has received significant news coverage in the IT security trade press consistent withWP:GNG. The firm has a noteworthy approach to solving the problem of false positive and false negative IT security alerts.  The article is well-substantiated (the references are unique news coverage, not press releases).   Cryptodd (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * JASK Labs is an emerging firm in the security analytics space that has gotten media coverage in the IT security press - the references for the article are well substantiated. The firm is notable in the IT security space. JASK is has an innovative approach and is expected to make an impact on the market and keeping this page makes sense.  While the page can be improved (linking rather than being an orphan article), it makes sense to retain the article and not delete the article. Kjritacco (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC) — Kjritacco (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SPIP. References are based on PR and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity and learning, It would help to point out which references are press releases or do not have depth from independent sources. The media coverage referenced in the report might have been a result of PR outreach on the part of the company, but as far as I can see the resulting coverage does not regurgitate press releases.  The references appear to provide depth from independent sources. Cryptodd (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. This reference from globalsecuritymag starts with "Jask announced" and is based on this Press Release and fails WP:ORGIND "any material which is substantially based on a press release". This reference from geekwire fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is based on quotations from the company's personnel and fails WP:ORGIND are it is an article whereby the main substance is the company talking about itself. This betanews reference fails because it is based on the same press release as the first reference (even uses the same quotes). This venturebeat article fails WP:ORGIND since it is based on an email their CEO sent to venturebeat and is therefore a PRIMARY source and is material published indirectly be the company. This techcrunch article fails WP:ORGIND as it is substantially based on this Press Release.
 * Just to add (and not saying you suffer from the same miscomprehension) but a lot of editors misunderstand "independent source" to mean a source (publisher) that is not affiliated with the topic (company) but in fact it means a *reference* that is *intellectually independent*. Stating that a source is "independent" and "reliable" only means that the source in question can accurately reprint, word for word, an interview or Press Release, without mistakes. For notability, the reference itself must be *intellectually independent*. So while information from a requoted press release reference may be used in the article (depending on other factors) - the reference does not count towards notability as it fails the criteria for establishing notability (for companies, this is WP:NCORP. Hope that helps. -- HighKing ++ 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to do that HighKing. I agree with all that - a lot of trade industry websites lightly edit press releases and publish posts like that.  This is churnalism.  I come across this all the time in the biotech industry, but one finds it in finance, IT, etc.  Lots of industry news is spurred by company announcements, but higher quality refs do actual reporting and add context that is really important for us to use, when we summarize them to create content.   Relying only on press releases and churnalism spurred by them, we end up providing only promotional content to readers, following whatever messaging the company is putting out there. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)  16:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:32, 10 September 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.