Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeBreach


 * 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 no consensus. Opinions are almost exactly equally divided.  Sandstein  09:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

SafeBreach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable start-up. Some VCs have given them money. And...? Calton | Talk 05:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Start-up WP:CORPSPAM, coverage limited to press releases and their reprints in business-like-usual-everything-goes trade journals like TechCrunch (who is soon going to report on "Big News! Someone sneezed at Startup X!"). We should delete start up articles on sight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Probably too soon. It isn't all promotion coverage - but it mostly is.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Haaretz and Globes are solid, reliable sources that are not known for publishing fluff or promotional material.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this one. As Icewhiz notes, it isn't all promotional coverage; moreover, the sources in the article are not the most recent sources available. The Bloomberg snapshot of the company relays a February 2017 announcement of a "strategic reseller agreement with Hewlett Packard", which elevates this over the usual start-up (S&P Global Market Intelligence vets claims of this type submitted to Bloomberg snapshots). Companies generally originate as start-ups, in some sense; of these, many fold quickly, while this one has not. Not all the sources focus on venture capital funding. SC Magazine and Network Magazine sources all focus on methodology, and Venture Beat also addresses this. There is enough going on with this company to make it a subject that people will turn to Wikipedia to find out more about, and we should oblige those potential readers. bd2412  T 13:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources used are mostly press releases, which per WP:NEWSORG are not true RS. Plus looking at the creators contribution history, he has only created this page and the founders page, leading me to believe we have some WP:COI here. -  Galatz Talk  13:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Likely WP:COI but not overly promotional. Despite the large number of reference about funding, there are three that pass WP:GNG - SC Magazine (written by the editor), Network World (written by the site's senior editor), and Venture Beat (written by staff writer). None are press release reprints from what I can tell. The headline for Venture Beat is about funding but it details more about the company in the article than it does about funding. Other reliable sources are Haaretz and Globes which as pointed out above would not publish promotional content. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are already a number of good enough sources on the page. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's well sourced and notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON -- just another cybersecurity tech company going about its business. The tone is promotional and the article cited to churnalism-like sources: about funding, product launches etc. This content belongs on the company web site, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable at this time and Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of press/promo releases. Kierzek (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2017 (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.