Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacework


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Lacework

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Borderline G11able, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:GNG. The SANS 'review' was sponsored by lacework, so this doesn't fill me with confidence for the CSO 'review' either. The AWB listing is a generic marketplace listing and the rest of the listed sources do not even mention the subject. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Article is also overly promotional both in tone and content, fails WP:SPIP.  HighKing++ 18:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and lack substantial mention of the subject, or fail to establish the encyclopedic notability of the company. Nothing sets this cloud service apart from similar companies.--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2018 (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.