Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetSPI (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. The only significant author has consented to deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NetSPI
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reinstated following earlier speedy deletion / AfD, but even with latest edits+improvements doesn't appear to be a notable company per WP:CORP. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Oscarthecat (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article cites a number of significant, independent sources that have written about the company, which I think collectively meet the notability standard. Another article has just appeared about the company in a well-established, well-regarded regional publication, Minnesota Business: http://www.minnesotabusiness.com/0p349a2973/security-force/ Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) — Burgo Fitzgerald (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here is some detail on the reliable, independent secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of NetSPI. The Media References section of the article cites two stories that appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the newspaper of record for the Upper Midwest of the U.S. There is extensive coverage in two leading business publications of the region, Twin Cities Business and Minnesota Business. In addition, there are two articles from IT publications, Retail Information Systems News and CSO (Chief Security Officer) magazine, as well as one article from Franchise Times, a national business publication.

Beyond this coverage, the company web site lists important technical conferences where NetSPI people have participated or will participate. For example, one NetSPI employee will be part of the team maintaining the network and firewall at | DEFCON in Las Vegas, the world's largest hacker convention, as he has for the past decade. Finally, the company partners with other, similar-size IT security firms that are the subject of Wikipedia articles, e.g., nCircle and Shavlik Technologies, and its clients include large and well-known organizations. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy delete, vehemently, and salt. Notability is a side issue when an article is obvious advertising like this one is:  ... an American consulting firm specializing in information and network security.  The current article contains advertising language designed to sell readers on why your business needs their services: Organizations large and small are targets of attacks by sophisticated cyber criminals intent on stealing valuable information. The massive thefts of personal and credit card data from TJX and Hannaford Brothers are but two recent examples.  An organization that suffers a data breach and is also found to not be in compliance with relevant security standards may be subject to civil and criminal lawsuits (which are often brought by the FTC), large fines, and onerous requirements such as having to have security audits performed for the next 20 years.  The references supplied are either client's websites or trade publications with tiny readership.  Wikilawyering over the "notability" of this advertisement only goes to show that standards for non-consumer and net-related businesses need to be strongly tightened up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Notability and advertising seem to be the Scylla and Charybdis for articles such as this one. The more one steers away from one hazard, the closer one comes to the other. Oscar objects on notability grounds and cites the Wikipedia guidelines: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I respond by noting the significant coverage that has appeared in prominent regional publications, including the largest circulation newspaper in the region. (A national online publication, examiner.com, just published a piece on the company this week.) I consider this a straightforward response, not pettifoggery. Previous commenters had objected to the article on the grounds that it did not state why anyone should care about NetSPI. I responded by revising the article to explain the importance of the kind of work done by information security firms such as NetSPI. This was an effort to establish notability on a different footing. The article makes no ad-like claims that NetSPI is superior, only that information security is vital to the functioning of the modern economy. I should have thought that almost a self-evident proposition. If it is self-evident, I am happy to remove the discussion of the importance of information security. Would that satisfy the objection?Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oscar and Smerdis, please take a look at the revised article. I deleted the sentences that Smerdis objected to.Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca  talk 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * - While I admit this is getting a bit unwieldy for another relist; there have been no comments since revised the article. A few fresh eyes would help this reach consensus one way or another. Thanks. ~  mazca  talk 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but don't salt. There's one article in the local paper specifically about the company, and a couple (trivial) quotes from the CEO in other articles.  Examiner.com is more like a blog site than a newspaper, there's no fact checking, no editorial review of local examiners; I don't think it's a reliable source.  The rest is press releases. Gigs (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gigs--I agree that this doesn't need salt. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Besides the full-length article in the MInneapolis Star Tribune, there is another article (in MInnesota Business) that is exclusively about the company and that is not a press release. It was written by Elizabeth Millard, a respected high tech journalist. This is, in fact, another independent, secondary source, the desideratum of the notability guideline. Beyond these, the company and its leaders have established a reputation as experts in information security. That reputation has led to their being cited in Twin Cities Business and again in the Star Tribune (in connection with a data breach by the Coleman campaign in the recently concluded Senatorial election for Minnesota). The reputation has also led to guest articles and citations in trade publications; again, none of these was a press release. The company does issue press releases, which are listed on its web site, but none of the media references cited is the result of a press release.Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's weak coverage Burgo. It would be best if you stop pushing this for now and waited for some more third party coverage to appear.  If your company continues to make the news, then I'm sure it will clearly satisfy the notability guidelines in the future, and then merit its own article.  If you keep pushing this so much that the article gets locked from being recreated, then it will only make the task that much harder in the future. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Gigs. Go ahead and delete. I will try again after the company makes more news. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 14:27, 24 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.