Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoginRadius (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

LoginRadius
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Recreation of page soft deleted in 2023 due to minimal participation in AfC. Company does not meet WP:NCORP. References fail WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software,  and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note - Not surprising that there are quite a few recent references from blogs and non-reliable sources. Indicative of a campaign that would be similar to NEWSORGINDIA in my experience. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources are unreliable outlets, trivial mentions, or both. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cannot find reliable & significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. popo dameron  ⁠ talk  21:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am surprised by this nomination. Here are some of the better publications and some analysis:
 * - Vancouver Sun: It is lengthy article from a reliable publication. It has coverage on the company, what it does, how many employees ideas and details of their office space. There are some quotations that can be considered primary, but if you eliminate the quotation there are still a few paragraphs of original content
 * - CEO Online - This is an industry publication. Peer reviewed articles are considered good for notability. While not particularly lengthy, the content is about three paragraphs, offering a substantial amount of information.
 * - LiveMint.com - This is lengthy article from a reliable source
 * - - Another industry publication, as it is peer reviewed, it should be considered to be a good citation for notability.
 * - - here is an in-depth review from an industry research website. It has no affiliate links, so it should be considered reliable.
 * - - This is not entirely about them, as it also mentions another company that does similar things. However there is quite a bit of info on them, and the company is mentioned 4 times.
 * - inc42.com - I am aware that some funding articles are seen as routine news, but this one is not just routine as the journalist have gone in detail about what company does. There are some quotations, but if you eliminate those, we still have a few paragraphs of info about the company.
 * - betakit.com - Same above comments apply here
 * - securityweek.com - Same comments as inc42 apply here.Maxcreator (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Vancouver Sun: This article is almost entirely about the company's office and not about the company itself, which is not sufficient for NCORP.
 * CEO Online [sic]: I don't know why you believe this is some kind of a peer-reviewed publication, because it doesn't seem to be at all. The author is described as a "freelance writer."
 * LiveMint.com: Hardly lengthy and hardly reliable.
 * biometricupdate.com: Also no indication of this being peer-reviewed.
 * softwarereviews.com: It has no affiliate links, so it should be considered reliable. That's not how reliability works. Take a look at WP:RS.
 * computerweekly.com: Not significant coverage.
 * inc42.com, betakit.com, securityweek.com: Not enough significant coverage about the company and indeed mostly funding.
 * popo dameron  ⁠ talk 02:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Most of the resources seems routine PR and it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORGCRITE. Macbeejack &#9742;  12:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fails notability guidelines; sources are mostly routine or mentions with hardly any GNG sources out there. Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:45, 3 March 2024 (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.