Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCircle network security


 * 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. Secret account 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

NCircle network security

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company is a run-of-the-mill IT security company. Not the subject of multiple third-party news sources. Seemingly was created by a paid editor. I already removed a significant amount of PR fluff and press release material. Another non-notable company that does not meet our general notability guidelines. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. References to corporate directories, press releases, and Top 5000 lists do not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep if deleted, then shouldn't Wikipedia systematically delete all of nCircle's competitors as well for consistency's sake? run of the mill IT security companies don't secure $60 million funding rounds from Visa and Menlo Ventures and hold numerous patents (I have seen $1m seed fund rounds get feature coverage in Mashable and TechCrunch -- the endless list of "sexy" startups that get ample wikipedia leeway i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_companies). Another thing. Note that the article does not attempt to rely on the Inc. list and other criticized sources to prove its notability. Please also balance against the "reliable" sources. If nCircle is "run of the the mill", then a major overhaul of all Wikipedia articles is necessary to avoid the arbitrary and selective bias against particular companies in this space. Just take a look at all of nCircle's competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_security_companies. nCircle is one of the largest companies out there: by revenue, size, funding, patents, experts. Regardless of who I am or who has asked me to write the article, it is difficult to see how the article has been written like an advertisement and the conflict of interest policy states: "Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia. The claims are about as sparse and factual as can be at this point. I now fear that Wikipedia might be exacting a penalty for companies that don't have that sexy start-up cache — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saidkassem (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (leaning towards, at least) i added 1 link showing who founded the company, and wikilinked all mentions of nCircle to this article. unfortunately, its not much, and the Business Insider ref is NOT in the top 100, but specifically one of the businesses THEY didnt know enough about. so, if Business Insider ever does get enough info to list them in a top 100, i would say recreate without prejudice. This business may in fact be more notable or even important than some other similar businesses, but i have to go with what we have on them thats confirmable. to saidkassem: WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why your main argument all alone is invalid (though the arguments about the size of the business are somewhat compelling). if another article here doesnt meet notability, improve it or call for its deletion. If i could create articles based on fact that since each pokemon character has its own...well, i need to watch my blood pressure on that comment.
 * and the fact that Menlo Ventures, Visa and friends invested a total of $60 million in the company? This is a confirmable fact that should in itself end the case about whether a company is notable or not. And yet all I see here are a slew of "deletes" without anyone seeming to want to weigh this fact specifically. Your opinion is appreciated nonetheless --Saidkassem (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, I have not found sufficient significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources to indicate that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The subject may receive significant coverage, where the subject is the primary subject of what the source is written about in the future, but right now it is my opinion that it maybe too soon for the company to have a Wikipedia article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the $60 million dollar investment round has been confirmed without a doubt. How does this not meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability? Thank you for your observations, however. --Saidkassem (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the value, or the amount of money that a company can spend that establishes notability as Wikipedia defines it, but the notability guidelines. Please read them. As I stated in my opinion, the subject of this article lacks what I consider to be significant covreage from non-primary reliable sources.
 * If other editors wish me to change my opinion please provide logical arguements, and I maybe persuaded. Also please provide the reliable sourced significant coverage that is the foundation of those arguements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the notability guidelines. It seems they are designed to have admins evaluate notability based on meta criteria more than anything. # of sources, reliability of sources over the facts being asserted, for example. So far I have been arguing about a fact: the size of company. But the truth is that this article meets all the primary criteria related to the quality of sourcing, which s what seems to matter most in Wikipedia's notability guidelines: "significant" coverage, reliable sources, independent sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Notice that it doesn't state how many articles are needed to fulfill the definition of "multiple source"? Right now the nCircle page is working with 11. Is that not enough to satisfy "multiple sources"? 11? The San Francisco Times article was written by an independent journalist and goes into detail about the company. Of all 11 sources, not one is a press release or material issued from nCircle. The more I look into this, the more troubling I am finding this process, and it makes me wonder if Wikipedia admins are prejudiced against PR professionals who get tapped to write these articles. Let's evaluate the work, not me.--Saidkassem (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can comment at AfDs, not just administrators. Looking at News sources, the majority appear to be pr releases. I see there are some sources that talk specifically about the company itself, and not its products, but so far, I have not seen significant coverage, but multiple mentions. I am presently of the opinion that those multiple mentions at this point do not yet add up to significant coverage. If Saidkassem believes they do, I ask the editor to provide examples.
 * As for PR professionals editing, I kindly refer the editor to WP:COI, and the ongoing discussion as to whether PR professions fall within those considered to have a COI.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The company appears to fail WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. A search of Google News Archive found mostly press releases (including some items that appeared in apparently reliable sources such as Reuters, but were disclaimed by Reuters as press releases). I did find one item from ABC News about the company acquiring another company but this does not amount to multiple significant coverage. BTW the claim at the article, that the company was listed as one of Business Insider's "100 most valuable private companies in the world," is not supported by the reference provided. Business Week said they didn't have enough information about the company to evaluate it, and in any case, that listing was not of the "most valuable private companies in the world" - it was "the most valuable private digital companies in the world." This sort of exaggeration does not speak well for the good faith of the article's creator. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW I note that the article was speedy-deleted on February 15 under G7, "author requests deletion," but was recreated on February 18. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now restored that deleted history, at least for the duration of this debate. The same creator created an earlier version of the page, then blanked it.  I found the blanked page while doing Short Pages patrol, and G7 deleted it, as is my normal practice in such situations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (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.