Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snyk


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Snyk

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

Nonnotable startup. Refs are usual PR/promo Loew Galitz (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nom withdrawn - I did find sources beyond PR babble. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, I think that the WSJ article goes beyond trivial coverage, but that alone does not meet WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think WSJ goes much beyond financial coverage associated with each round of financing. Written by a financial journalist, on technical issues it doesn't say more than the company says about itself. Meaning there is no independent coverage about technical capabilities of the company, which must be written a tech person. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

https://venturebeat.com/2022/03/17/cybersecurity-has-53-unicorns-here-are-10-to-watch/ may not give it notability there are already pieces about its impending IPO https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity-startup-snyk-taps-morgan-stanley-goldman-ipo-sources-2022-03-07/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-23/cybersecurity-startup-snyk-is-said-to-plan-2022-ipo
 * Comment, I don't think I can vote given I created this and am thus conflicted so I will only comment. There is definitely merit in what Loew Galitz says and this debate has ongoing for a while. It's an interesting one. I saw the news of the billion dollar valuation and that prompted me to create it. This created a lot of coverage about the financing, not so much about the company itself. While articles such as

https://venturebeat.com/2022/02/17/snyk-cofounder-on-ipo-plans-well-pick-our-time-wisely/ Again, articles about the financing, not so much about the company itself. I don't know if this gets it over the line. Surely the IPO and the press it generates will be sufficient, but if the prevailing wisdom think it's better to wait until then, fair enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I expanded the article with some technical detail. I found Gartner's report with lots of solid independent technical info, but unfortunately lost it.  Loew Galitz (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw and thank you for that. A nice by-product of this is making your acquaintance. Nice to meet you Loew Galitz :) MaskedSinger (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @MaskedSinger You may offer a formal opinion. That you created it does not disqualify your ability to suggest we keep this article. I have said before as accepting AFC reviewer I will take no part in this discussion.  All I am doing here is to say that the closing admin should interpret your comment above as your opinion to keep the article. I remain steadfastly neutral as is my custom with drafts I accept at AFC. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourcing has been improved and is sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. This shouldn’t even be open anymore - nom withdrew the nomination. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep enough now to show WP:ORG KylieTastic (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (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.