Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrongDM (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (leaning Keep). Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

StrongDM
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, virtually every source in the article either fails WP:IS or is not SIGCOV. Google News was much of the same. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 21:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I told the nominator that I just published the page and was still working on it. There are all significant sources in the field they are being published in. Most of the ones I used are on the subject of their products and technology. The company has the Global Managing Partner of Sequoia as a board member, Google Ventures, Sequoia, Tiger Global & Bloomberg as investors and until a year ago was a female led tech company that had raised over $76M in funds. It is mentioned a couple times on wikipedia, even as a competitor by a company with a much worse page. The issue seems to be the CEO participates routinely in a lot of articles as an expert and it makes searching google much harder. Any sources that aren't 3rd party quality sources are only used for subjects they would be qualified to cite such as, the change in CEO, i cited the company website. I my opinion, there is a public interest in the company and several articles on competitors cite this company as a top competitor in the field. Plus I am not done with the page so, I would like the opportunity to improve it as I mentioned on the talk a page when it was created. The two competitors listed on the page, which actually mention strongDM on their pages, either use similar sources or are significantly less credibly referenced. They are also less notable with less notable investors. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep  I am upgrading my vote, has plenty of notability to meet WP:SNG. One of the top in its field, ranked #1 in several listicles, and better referenced than other pages in the same category. Plenty for a new page stub of a company that just raised $54M. If it was years ago and no hope of expansion, I would be on the fence.. but this is tech and mainstream media doesnt cover these categories as much. The jargon and products are just too complicated for monday morning reading before the comics. There are a dozen industry trade references. Happy to hear more on the argument from anyone in the networking, devops or other fields who are familiar with the company. ~ ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Websites,  and California. Skynxnex (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this meets NCORP. Most of the articles here, except maybe the one in Fortune which I can't access, are about the software, not the company. The remaining ones about the company are routine announcements of funding, which don't support notability. It might be worth thinking about whether the software itself can be shown to be notable. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * After much work on the article, I am changing my !vote to Keep. The article now covers separately the company and its product(s). There is more work to be done to remove extraneous sources and to better clarify the software offerings, but I think it meets NCORP now. Lamona (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There is one in Forbes, there are a ton within the DevOps and network security field which you have to sort through from smaller tech sources. If you look at companies is the same categories, it certainly looks like there is somewhat of a lower standard since your average NY Times or LA Times article doesnt mention much on Zero Trust architecture or privileged access management. Enterprise level network security rarely makes that fashion rags if you understand what I mean. I would understand if you would want to take it down at a later date but, at this point they received $54M in venture within the last 12 months, they have a billionaire board member who is the Global Managing Partner of Sequoia and an enviable list of investors. I think there is a public interest from not only a notability standpoint but from a scientific pov. I could be wrong but both looking through "Category:Networking companies" and "Category:Computer security software companies" shows a significantly lower standard than say a reality tv contestant. This is an evolving field and  WP:NCORP suggest that a company must make a significant contribution to its field and that  is what strongDM has been does. To me if we challenge the notability of this article, then almost every company in these two categories needs to be tagged and voted on. Our goal at wikipedia is to adopt a general standard and provide that standard for every page. Currently, i believe strongdm exceeds the notability requirements and social interest in this field. In 5 years from now, this page may be reviewed, but in this category, the page exceeds the requirements for the fields which it actively participates. I would look at the Forbes, NYPost, softwareengineeringdaily, dzone, ITOpsTimes, intelligentcio and a number of other articles to establish notability. I could add more trades but it seems like reference bombing. Voters will do what they will but, my honest opinion, it would exclusionary to leave this company out of wikipedia without providing the same scrutiny. I think the company meets WP:SNG . I am happy to hear everyones thoughts. Perhaps making this a stub and revisiting it down the road might be an acceptable solution? WP:5P5 should be considered in the overall interest of creating the same standards for every company in the field to be notable. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the company and the software are pretty much the same thing. The company focuses on enterprise security and permission granting across multiple systems. Besides the open source project they created, I believe the company really only offers the one product. I could be wrong but that is my understanding. I just re-read your comment, i apologize. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is where I see it differently. I know that the names are the same, but we wouldn't consider Microsoft identical to Windows, or Sun identical to Java. I think there is a better chance here of finding supporting resources for the software than the company. It's a matter of emphasis: an article for the software that includes information about the company will have many more good sources, from what I can see. An article about the company that includes information about the software will not have good sources for the company aspect. In the end, the question is: which is more important? My money is on the software. And, btw, the article today is pretty unclear when it switches from one aspect to the other - regardless of the approach, the two things, the company and the software, are logically and semantically different "things." Lamona (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The page would have the same name and still be categorized the same. strongDM is the company and the product. Think Netflix. I appreciate the idea, I am certainly open to it but, I just think voting for the software and the company are the same since.. I appreciate the keep vote or suggested amendment . I actually added a stub tag to the page. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Netflix analogy holds - it's a subscription service for content. I decided to try out separating the company (User:Lamona/sandbox/StrongDM_(Company)) from the software (User:Lamona/sandbox/StrongDM_(Software). These are quite faulty, but it was the only way that I could think about it. In doing so I noticed 1) the language in the article you created is quite promotional, which violates WP:PROMO, and 2) there's serious citation overkill. That latter makes it hard for readers to use the article as an information source. For each fact you need one good reference, occasionally two, but never 3 or 4. I still !vote delete on this article and think an article about the software/platform is more likely to be notable. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be fine to set them up separately but, I think the articles would be ultimately merged. Similar to Netflix they are buying a portal for enterprise level credential and permission distribution with support. It would be redundant to create pages for both but, I certainly would be open to editing the article closer to either of the versions I saw in your sandbox. I do agree with you about the reference bombing, it was something I mentioned earlier but, trying to show notability in computer networking is challenging. I am curious about what you think about the other companies in these categories, should there be a mass review or a proposed wiki project? I am also curious which part you found promotional? Everything was sourced from the web an seems to contain a complete lack of adjectives. Let me know and I will make an attempt to fix it. To me, deleting the article or WP:TNT seems like a waste of work and overkill. Thanks LMK! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that both should be articles; I did the separation to try to understand what parts of the original article refer to the company and which refer to the software. It could be combined into a single article but the two aspects need to be made clear. It matters because most of the sources say little about the company but a fair amount about the software. In terms of promotional, the uses of "every" and "any" are superlative and do not even come from the cited sources. No product can truly boast of "every" or "any". I have to say that looking at sources 7 and 8 I don't see how those support the sentence they follow. I haven't the time to look at all of the sources (the 'bomb' problem). It would be good if you could reduce the sources to just those that actually support the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did cut and paste a description before reworking the sentences in my sandbox. I apologize for the "any" but from what I understand, the company's service does log, all or every, user action and change by recording video. I think that is part of the appeal and what they sell. To be able to go back and see where mistakes were made on the administrative level, issuing permissions and making edits. From what I understand it will work with any database but I certainly see the issues with removing the unnecessary language. I will go through the references this afternoon and try and double check them. Honestly, this was more of a stub when I published it. I didnt see the AfD nomination coming and it has forced me to spend more time on this that I had originally planned. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I reorganized the references and removed a bunch of them. Am I wrong to think that we can agree that we can come to some sort of agreement that there is an acceptable page to be published here? I am sure we can work together to come up with something that makes sense. I'd rather have a yes vote with some editing since the voting should be over sometime in the next 24 hours. Let me know what I can do. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont really tag for AfD but I think there needs to be a real look at the categories of Networking companies and Category:Computer security software companies to put together a notability standard for the field. Just using the two pages of Teleport and Perimeter 81 as examples, these companies are published with no 3rd party references that indicate notability outside of fundraising. In fact, in both those categories the referencing is atrocious and littered with press releases, lack of significant coverage and proper 3rd party sourcing. This article looks like a peach comparatively! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * comment I think we have come to some sort of compromise. We both got rid of some references, Lamona has been kind enough to restructure the page and do some additional editing. Thanks for all the help! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete still looks like most mentions are trivial, funding announcements and the like. Even after the clean up as above, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. FOrbes and IT Brief New Zealand are enough to pass GNG. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 15:28, 20 January 2023 (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.