Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UpGuard


 * 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  13:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

UpGuard

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

This article reads like an advert, has largely been written by a series of throwaway SPAs, with just some gnoming from more established accounts. Looking at the sourcing, I'm seeing some unreliable sources (note that all the Forbes pieces are written by contributors), some stuff obvious rehashed press releases, and a few passing mentions in more substantial pieces of journalism. Bearing WP:CORPDEPTH in mind, I do not believe that WP:NCORP has been met.

In short: I believe this is a piece of covert promotion, almost certainly written in contravention of our terms of use by undeclared paid editors, about a non-notable company, and it should be deleted. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP. Lacking in depth reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe WP:NCORP has been met due to inclusion of sources from New York Times, CNN, TechCrunch, CBS, and Bloomberg which are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Another condition for WP:NCORP is inclusion in substantial coverage. This company was involved in a prolonged controversy, the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The company discovered the tools created by Aggregate IQ and used by Cambridge Analytica. Perhaps a section should be added on this company’s contribution to the investigationKenzie747 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC). — Kenzie747 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * New York Times, CNN etc are indeed independent, reliable secondary sources - but they only mention the company in passing, in articles about something else. No quality sources that I can find discuss it in a way that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I note, for what it's worth, that this company is the only subject you have ever edited about - you may wish to review COI. Girth Summit  (blether)  00:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason that WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied is that the company sells products that help their customers find data leaks, and the significant media coverage of their cybersecurity research only exists because of the company, their employees, and their products. Put another way, without the existence of the company, these security incidents and associated coverage would not exist.
 * An example of significant coverage of the company itself is the referenced article in the Australian Financial Review which is an in-depth profile of the company’s products and capital raising activities. The article is both reliable and independent.
 * This ZDNet article is a significant piece that profiles the launch of the company's BreachSight product which automates data breach discovery.
 * The Australian did an in-depth piece on the company when they launched a cyber risk insurance product in partnership with Insurance Australia Group.
 * ZDNet covered the company's disclosure of a medical data breach in Australia. While this article is based on the company's own blog post, it is written by a reputable journalist.
 * This CNBC interview with one of the company executives, which describes the company's (at the time) new products.
 * Another example of significant coverage is this New York Times piece which goes into some depth about the specifics of the company’s security research and associated products/services: “Instead, he searches communication ports and the internet’s hive of connected devices to find information inadvertently made public. His discoveries have included medical records, airport security files, hotel bookings, a terrorist screening database and 87 million Mexican voter registration records. Once the sensitive information has been secured, he publicly discloses that the data had been revealed.” This level of coverage exceeds the examples of trivial coverage.
 * Regarding COI, I appreciate you pointing me in that direction and can understand why. I'm a new wiki editor, very much learning, and exploring other cybersecurity-related pages that I can contribute to. I don't believe I have any conflicts that would affect the edits I've made so far. Kenzie747 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The ZDNet articles are obviously rehashed press releases - they're not independent. The CNBC interview is an WP:INTERVIEW. The NYT piece has almost nothing about the company. I'll need to check the Australian/AFR pieces later on, I can't get past the pay wall from my phone. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per LibStar. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checking back in to say that I looked at the Australian Financial Review piece, and it looks like anther piece of PR, rather than organic coverage. Almost every assertion is either a direct or an attributed quote by Mike Baukes, one of the company's founders, or from a manager at IAG, an insurance firm they were announcing a partnership with. My guess is that the two companies put out a joint press release, and AFR just moved the copy around a bit - this isn't independent. I haven't been able to access the article in the Australian, but even if it is high-quality, that would be the only source conveying any notability - and one such source isn't sufficient to satisfy NCORP. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The sentence, "The company’s research has been published in several high-profile data breaches and data leaks" is problematic on its own, as there is zero notability to be derived from the mere publication of content, with no context as to whether this was self-published. BD2412  T 21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Feels like an upscale puff piece, agree with most of what's said above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:51, 19 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.