Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varonis


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Varonis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG and all the sources given are wothless. Article has become an edit warring battleground between the representatives of Varonis and their competitor Whitebox Security.  Spinning Spark  18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are trivial, irrelevant to notability (e.g., patents), unreliable blogs or random industry "awards".  Googling turned up nothing better.  Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION.  Msnicki (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: article sounds promo, but with G 1.5m and GN 3,7k the company has enough coverage to meet WP:N.-- Dewritech (talk)  08:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would care to give a link to your 1.5 million ghits. I got rather less than that for Varonis, the vast majority of which are hits for people called Varonis who have nothing to do with this company.  Have you actually found any reliable sources that give more than a passing mention?  Spinning  Spark  20:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why in world should we care about WP:GOOGLEHITS? Answer:  We don't.  As a general rule, all it takes to establish notability is two good reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject.  Right now, you have zero.  But if those WP:GOOGLEHITS actually mean anything, you shouldn't have any trouble finding the two you need.  Msnicki (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: as noted by nominator, fails WP:NCORP with nothing to distinguish it from the similar businesses. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I count 8 independent sources from the references section of the article with more than passing mention. These were here when the article was nominated. What gives? --Kvng (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kvng, but trim back considerably. Right now this looks too much like an WP:ADVERT. The list of customers, for example, is unnecessary. Pburka (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another article about Varonis from a reliable source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/wilson-sonsinis-removal-is-sought-in-start-up-suit/ Pburka (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NCORP the notability of company can't be derived from its founders, employees, clients, offices, deals and products. Which of the references demonstrate this kind of notability? – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The refs are about the product. In my assessment, I didn't get caught up on company vs. product. My finding was that we have something notable here. --Kvng (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice. Still in order to validate the inclusion of a notable topic we have to define it. We just can't have an article on "Life, the Universe, and Everything". – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider that an article quality issue and I don't give it strong consideration in AfD decisions. We don't delete bad articles, we improve them. --Kvng (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of notability of article's topic is not the quality issue. If there is something notable here, it must be identified and there should be article about it. The current topic — company — isn't notable, so the inclusion of an article about it is inappropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I found notability evidence for the company's product. The article can be reworked to target the product. I think that's a better path than deleting the article and and having someone eventually creating a new one about the product. --Kvng (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this article tells nearly nothing about the products, so repurposing it will involve writing completely new text (with no single sentence from this article) under another name. At this point there is no sense in keeping the current article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your statement that "this article tells nearly nothing about the products." Are we reading the same article? --Kvng (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reading Varonis. If properly condensed and cleaned of PR mess, it would be a miserable stub with one reference. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing to have significant coverage in independent third party sources. Ping my talk page if more sources are added to the article. The company's PR folks are welcome to recast the whole thing as being about the software. Recast as an article about the software the outcome may be different. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2012 (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.