Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socure


 * 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  12:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Socure

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is probably the work of multiple undisclosed paid editors, as evinced by the page history; and I was highly unconvinced about the notability of Socure. Having searched Google for sources for roughly half an hour, other than this Bloomberg piece, all that I came across was Businesswire press releases, and articles in niche reporting sites which only seemed to have been rewritten versions of the press releases, i.e. churnalism. Having found very little that otherwise indicates that Socure passes WP:NCORP, I'm bringing it here for discussion.  Java Hurricane  11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with nom, not much of note to be found. GNews has the puff pieces/press releases, a G newspaper search only finds OCR mis-readings of the word "secure". Not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not Delete The claim that this was by paid authors is incorrect (I wrote the initial article and was not paid). The Identity verification market where the company plays may be obscure to some, but there are existing articles on Socure competitors including Onfido and Jumio. The company has ~300 employees and been noted by industry analyst Gartner. If you are going to remove this article, you are being inconsistent by retaining, similar articles. Cryptodd (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not Delete As an additional contributor, I can confirm I was also not paid to write it. In regards to churnalism, a number of the references are to third-party sources that might be niche but are valid journalistic entities, such as The Fintech Times, Forbes, TechCrunch. Ceeduff (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you confirm you don't have a WP:COI? Also, have you edited under a different user name in the past?  HighKing++ 15:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I checked all the sources, and it was rather easy to see how the different "third-party articles" were basically rewrites of the same press releases on Businesswire. Compare, for instance, this, this, this, this and this press release.  Java Hurricane  05:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per JavaHurrican's source analysis. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per source analysis above, references discussed above fail WP:ORGIND as they rely entirely on company announcements and press releases - no "Independent Content".  HighKing++ 15:35, 4 October 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.