Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThreatConnect


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

ThreatConnect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources are clear published and republished PR advertising and there's simply no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else especially since policy WP:NOT applies. When an article has to overblatantly focus with advertising information like this, it shows there's simply no genuine substance. Worse, it emphasizes it since not only the fact this is barely 5 years old, but the sheer fact the sources are literally mirrored PR. Even with the now made improvements, it's still not enough to satisfy our pillar policies for advertising. SwisterTwister  talk  18:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - please look it up, WP:N seems to be clearly given here. E.g. see these:, , , , , , , , , , ... --Fixuture (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Half of those were simply announcements, event listings of how they were involved and other trivial matters; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else simply because of news stories. Also, which actual policy would allow article's existence alone? SwisterTwister   talk  22:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable and passes WP:ORG: plenty of non-trivial coverage in available sources. Also passes WP:AUD, with coverage from national and international sources, including The Guardian, Washington Post, Fortune, Bloomberg. Stickee (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. They have been involved in such extremely important recent events, that this article makes sense, despite most sources not really being substantially about the company. We can make exceptions when it helps the reader.  DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 15 January 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.