Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCircle


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

NCircle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article about a tech service (information security) business does not make a strong case for its notability. Proposed deletion was apparently tried before, on the grounds of advertising, and the article was apparently deleted under that proposal once; see the talk page. No formal references, but a long list of external links, apparently tech industry trade publications in which representatives of this business have been quoted, on articles relating to various patch updates from Microsoft and Apple, the programming in IPhones: most are not closely related to this business, or about it as their actual subject. Some are blogs. Others are dead links. This non-consumer Internet related business does not appear to obviously meet the business notability guidelines. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy Delete as this linkfarm is pure spam. In any case, there is no evidence that this company, its products (or should I refer to them as nProducts?), employees or directors are notable.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AS STATED IN THE DISCUSSION PART OF THE NCIRCLE PAGE:

I've read through the notability page and I think that this article meets all the specific criteria.

"Significant Coverage"- I've linked multiple news sources to the article that cover both the company and products. They are very highly rated news sources within the field that nCircle works, and show the impact that the company and it's employees have on the IT Security field.

"Reliable"- The sources that are linked are published in multiple magazines and are separate from nCircle and its website or advertising media.

"Sources"- All cited sources are secondary sources.

"Independent of the subject"- The information in the article is not from nCircle advertising or publication materials. It is separate from the company and can be verified through the secondary sources that have been cited.

"Presumed"- with the amount of coverage that has been posted in the media section, as well as the number of topics to which this article relates, (IT Security, network security, penetration testing, payment card industry security standards, etc.) the article has enough objective evidence of notability and can be presumed notable.

I feel that I've met all the noteability requirements as laid out in the notability page. Is there anything else I can do to make it more noteable, or to prevent it from being deleted?

-

As for the argument that the links are not sources about ncircle but where ncirlce is quoted: ncircle is highly respected in its field for information on security. That includes a lot of software patches and security measures. Not every article will be a biography of the company, and cannot be expected to be. They do, however, show very well that ncircle is where major news sources turn for information on the security atmosphere and that fact reinforces the notablility and impact of the company.

Why is this coming up again? I met all the requirements and had a discussion with someone about it all once. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT SO THAT THIS DOES NOT GET DELETED. It is not spam, or marketing, or anything else having to do with the company-- it is merely information about the company and its history.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpelton (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CORP. This is a spammy vanity advertisement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of the 10 or so refs given, 3 are dead links. 2 are semi-press releases. 1 is written by the company's employee. The remainder, 3 news stories in which company employee is quoted, and one short "company profile", does not seem to satisfy WP:CORP. This is blatant advertisement. Tim Song (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2009 (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.