Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logz.io


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Logz.io

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

Looking at the sources and elsewhere online, cannot see how this company meets WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the sources and elsewhere online, I come to the exact opposite conclusion. Notable and well-sourced. No reason at all for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I made my way here from Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Scott_(businessman). Cause if he created a page about himself, I was curious to see what other edits he made. Sure enough, he works here. Sure enough, just about every edit he's made is undeclared COI. As for this page, there's too many red flags. That he created the page over-rides any merit that the company may be Wiki-notable. The page should be scrapped and if someone wants to start over, they should go for it. As for the editor, the book needs to be thrown at him. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, . For the sake of good order, I am repeating my comment at the Samuel Scott AfD. if you look at "View history" for Logz.io, Nreatian and KelWright are possible socks for Sjscott80. Looking at Special:Contributions/Nreatian, two of the other articles edited, Ness Digital Engineering and SilverPush look to be of questionnable notability. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was the original author of the page in question. To clarify: Yes, I worked at this company until 2017. No, I do not have any "socks." Any edits made since 2017 would likely have been made by others (whether still at the company or not, I do not know).
 * I have also made other clarifications at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Scott_(businessman). 109.64.180.197 (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if the company is wiki-worthy, you've stained it by association. This content is tainted and should be deleted. If someone legit wants to come along and recreate it, they can do so with a clean start. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: while we seem to have a consensus on COI, we don't have one on notability Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  14:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per self admitted COI. Did not expect the author to admit the COI. Gabe114 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Gila. Specifically, these are two very strong sources: . gidonb (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * HighKing's excellent findings below clearly undermined the validity of my second most promising source. In order to vote delete, I would need to re-evaluate all. I may get to that. But meantime my keep does not stand. gidonb (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment.Given what is now confirmed about this page's origins, tags should be placed on the page (Close connection, COI, paid editor, etc) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not automtically. Only if specific problems remain. gidonb (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * two very strong sources ? you must be kidding: 1) this an a contributor writer, without any editorial vetting, and 2) this is just a routing coverage of a miniscule money funding based on a PR material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5FA5:100:5560:274E:4238:4792 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anon, not kidding! Staff journalists and freelance expert writers are both subject to editorial oversight. The other article was written by staff journalist, so you are contradicting yourself. Both are reputable sources. The Calcalist source, you decided to attack, is great analysis. This journalist was so good that he became Calcalist's hitech editor. Please refrain from such totally false attcks from behind IPs! gidonb (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you are blocked already from editing other pages. Please don't disrupt here either. As I said, these two are VERY good sources. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not blocked at all, this is ip of a cellular phone, the xellular companies used to change the ip adress frequently, each time they give it to other user. If you knew wikipedia rules you knew that contributors aren't reliable sources and altough routine coverage of a minor deal in a mediocre economy peripherial outlets. You should read deletion duscussions, perhaps you will learn something. But, speaking of blocked, what about Grennwiz ? Maybe you will ask her not to interfere ? She blocked many times and for a long periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:2:2D3A:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Her block log looks empty to me. She's an old-time contributor like me. More focused on Israel. I participate in many AfDs. gidonb (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * check again, is this a clean block log ? Of course, she is always pro Israel and on the keep side of the discussion, not very neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:4:6633:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I did not know her as very political or that she was blocked. Just knew she cared about Israeli content. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
 * Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
 * As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
 * WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. They invariably rely on company press releases, announcements and interviews and do not contain any "Independent Content". Looking at the two references which gidonb describes as "VERY good sources" - the first from ZDNet starts by stating that Logz.io *announced* the latest addition to its portfolio at the AWS reInvent event and that the journalist "caught up with Logz.io CEO, Tomer Levy, to discuss". There's quite a bit of information about the new platform and leaving aside the information provided by the CEO, there is some "Independent Content" in the form of opinion/analysis on the topic company's stance (and that of their competitors) with Open Source. For me though, it is too light and doesn't quite meet WP:CORPDEPTH but if there existed other sources I'd be inclined to include this towards meeting the criteria for notability. Unfortunately, this next reference is based entirely on this press release and information provided by the company and fails ORGIND. I'm happy to change my mind if other references are found that meet NCORP but I'm unable to find any in-depth article that discuss the *company*. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete iaw WP:TNT due to COI (and WP:GNG fail. Springnuts (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It is essentially old tech in a new wrapper with some additions to the siem and ids. These days its quite generic. Fails WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  16:25, 23 April 2022 (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.