Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nok Nok Labs


 * 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   redirect to FIDO Alliance. Rounded to redirect slakr  \ talk / 09:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nok Nok Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

SPA-written promo that uses two RS that quote the founder (Phil Dunkelberger) and mention he has a startup (this company) but both articles are about FIDO Alliance and NOT this company. It is a year-old startup with no notability. EBY (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Any coverage mentioning this recent start-up relates more to the FIDO Alliance and routine announcements. The firm may become notable in future but at present this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm equally comfortable with User:MelanieN's alternative suggestion below of a redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, Nok Nok Labs is a founding member and driver of the FIDO Alliance and consequently much of the coverage regarding Nok Nok Labs will involve the FIDO Alliance. I modified a press release quote to be from a news source (Pitchbook). Note that news coverage will probably include FIDO Alliance information as that is integral to the ecosystem in which Nok Nok operates. --Cryptodd (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC) To be clear, I object to deleting the Nok Nok Labs article as I believe the page now conforms with Wikipedia guidelines and has been edited to address the above stated concerns. --Cryptodd (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC) (NOTE: User:Cryptodd is the author of the article.) 
 * Redirect to FIDO Alliance, where it is already mentioned. This will preserve the article history, in case the company becomes notable enough in the future for the redirect to be expanded into an article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 To restate my objections to deleting this article, the article has been updated to remove any references to press releases and I have added additional citations to substantiate the article. One issue raised was that the citations referenced the FIDO Alliance more than Nok Nok Labs. Nok Nok Labs is a founding member of the FIDO Alliance (which has 100+ members at this point) and has a business model that leverages the FIDO Alliance ecosystem, so Nok Nok Labs references will probably include FIDO Alliance references. I believe the revised Nok Nok Labs article as it stands now is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. --Cryptodd (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewing after recent revisions: I still don't find this company to meet the WP:CORP requirements for a standalone article. The references cited are to things like minor trade journals; I don't find anything from what I would consider a significant Independent Reliable Source. Same with the sources turned up on a search. When we start to see significant coverage from major newspapers, then we can talk about restoring the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added in two additional citations from reputable, major trade publications (Network World and SC Magazine). The Google search on "Nok Nok Labs" provided above supports inclusion of the Nok Nok Labs article with an additional "reputable publication" - an American Banker article. The new citations added to the Nok Nok Labs article are security trade publications, however they are significant industry trade publications read by most enterprise IT security practitioners. If the bar is that one has to wait for coverage from major newspapers (publications that are in decline and reducing newsroom staff) before adding an article to Wikipedia, we had better start deleting a bunch of entries, particularly for startup companies that might eventually go on to do great things. I think the revised Nok Nok Labs article meets the bar with adequate references from significant secondary publications. These citations are not major newspaper references because Nok Nok Labs authentication business is business IT security product, not a consumer product that would frequently make consumer newspaper headlines. --Cryptodd (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not persuaded. Those two new citations?  One's a blogpost and the other is about this Dunkelberger chap or about a product, not about the company itself.  The answer to there being no good references because the company's business is secret isn't "So the subject doesn't have to meet the GNG."  It's "So the subject doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article."  Nha Trang  Allons! 21:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Retain: I disagree with the previous comments - the Network World article focuses on the company and the CEO. The headline says it: "PGP Corp. co-founder's startup targets cloud authentication: Can Phil Dunkelberger's new venture, Nok Nok Labs, really change authentication for the better?" The SCMagazine UK citation is a blog, but a regular editorial columnist blog. And these are only two of eight citations. I think this passes the Wikipedia article bar, and if the bar is higher, then we probably need to delete a number of other articles. --Cryptodd (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (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.