Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe 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. ✗ plicit  05:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Safe Security

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promoting the organization through trivial mentions, self-published sources and user-generated sources. Basically it is an WP:ADMASQ. RPSkokie (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC) *Keep Although there are many passing mentions from the page sources, I was able find sources that do pass WP:SIGCOV:, , ,. Also, the platform was integral in Bharat Interface for Money (BHIM)'s cybersecurity framework. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Delete per comments below. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Source Analysis - 1; a press release, 2; a WP:ADMASQ article, 3; a WP:ADMASQ article, 4; a WP:ADMASQ article, 5; a WP:ADMASQ article, 6; a WP:ADMASQ article, 7; a press release. RPSkokie (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On what evidence are they ADMASQ? Looks like mostly standard business journalism. They write news articles when there is news, shocking behavior for a journalist. --  Green  C  17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying "Looks like mostly standard business journalism" doesn't help your argument because, sadly, most of what passes for "standard business journalism" these days fails WP:ORGIND. You've listed 7 references.
 * This from Deccan Chronicle is based entirely on an announcement by the company. Here's the Press Release. Both have the same dates, same text, same quotes. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from the Economic Times is also based entirely on the same press release and announcement. Same facts, same date, same promotion and does not contain any "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from IndianExpress is based on this Press Release from the company. Same date. Note the use of the word "we" throughout. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Economic Times is also the next day from the announcement and press release above, but covering the same announcement, relying entirely on information and quotes provided by the company and its execs with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Business Standard is a puff piece, relying entirely on background information provided by the company and quotes from the CEO. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from The Hindu relies entirely on an interview/quotations from the CEO with no "Independent Content" (fails WP:ORGIND) and no in-depth information on *the company* (the topic of this article) failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This from firstpost.com also relies entirely on information and quotations from the company and connected individuals, has no "Independent Content", has no in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
 * As per WP:SIRS, individual sources must meet all the criteria. None of the references provided meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 21:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company or interviews provided by execs - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:44, 6 December 2021 (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.