Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verasafe


 * 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Verasafe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page for this company lacks significant independent coverage. Given that it's well maintained by WP:SPAs who stuffed it with citations to third-party sources that don't actually mention the company, and that cursory web search doesn't turn up any such sources, I recommend deletion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that the article references have been updated to meet the Wiki standards, and that there is one reference from the US Federal Government that specifically mentions Verasafe. That particular reference makes mention of only 2 other similar companies in that context (both of which also have Wikipedia articles). ThomasDelay (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The USPS endorsement of Verasafe cold be just a business deal. I think more than that is required to justify a Wikipedia article per WP:CORPDEPTH. 07:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I researched this and found that the endorsement from USPS is not a business deal and is totally independent of any commercial interest. The USPS endorsement is not trivial or incidental, and does establish notability considering that the source is the Federal Government, and the recommendation is only given to three organizations (all of which have Wikipedia articles).76.19.81.220 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.19.81.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, nice amount of source coverage. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where? Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * http://threatpost.com/zitmo-trojan-variant-eurograbber-beats-two-factor-authentication-steal-millions-120612/77287 76.19.81.220 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.19.81.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you the same person as User:Cirt? That page is not covering Verasafe in terms of WP:GNG. It contains a passing mention as in "The Trojan, dubbed Eurograbber by researchers at Check Point Software Technologies and Verasafe, is a variant of the Zitmo Trojan." The rest of the page is describing Eurograbber. Give me a break with the WP:BOMBARDMENT. I should add that there is plenty of in-depth coverage of Eurograbber in more mainstream (less bloggish) sources that doesn't ever mention Verasafe (whether that's fair or not in this case)  etc.  Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No,, that was not me. However, I did find some coverage in a search at Google Scholar, and elsewhere. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Verasafe%22 returns 2 hits (a set of slides in which the only mention of Versave is the full 170-member company list of TCPA and  which is a hit because it contains a citation for their Eurograbber study  as "E. Kalige, D. Burkey, A Case Study of Eurograbber: How 36 Million Euros was Stolen via Malware, joint Verasafe –CheckPoint whitepaper, 2012, http://www.checkpoint.com/products/downloads/whitepapers/Eurograbber_White_Paper.pdf"). Neither of these look like they would satisfy WP:GNG for Verasafe. Being cited in one paper is far too low a threshold for considering a company notable. Membership among 170 companies in TCPA doesn't add a whole lot to their notability. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * N.B. Two press articles about Eurograbber I've mentioned previously do mention Verasafe... except they both misspell it as "Versafe" (dropping an "a"). Still, they contain only a passing mention of the company. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here's another source: Softpedia News. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's the same company? Verasafe is Boston-based, while Versafe is described in that article as Israel-based. (The logos are also different.) I'm starting to think that the mainstream press about Eurograber is actually correctly calling the company involved Versafe, while the bloggish coverage (threatpost.com) plus the Romanian academy paper (found in Google Scholar) attributing the feat to Verasafe might actually be the ones with typos. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And that assumption is confirmed by checking the Eurograbber whitepaper . Verasafe is not involved in it, Versafe is. (Versafe's web page is http://www.versafe-login.com/, by the way. They don't have any offices in Boston . Clearly these are entirely different companies if you also look at their product lists.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Additional information available in LexisNexis includes material from Zoom Company Information, GlobalData, and also from Jigsaw Company Profiles. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Given that the original concerns raised here have been addressed, I would recommend keeping the article. If no consensus can be reached here, I suggest implementing a 'no consensus' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'no consensus'; edit the page to remove the deletion notice; and record the outcome on the page's talk page. Flaviohmg (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How have they been addressed? Let me summarize the discussion above:
 * Two concrete third-party sources correctly mention Verasafe: one USPS endorsement, and one mention in a 170-company membership list of TCPA.
 * Any mentions of Verasafe in connection with the Eurograbber investigation are typos for Versafe (note a missing "a"), which is an unrelated Israel-based company.
 * Cirt claims above the company is also mentioned in a few (paywalled?) databases, but WP:CORPDEPTH requires more than that. ZoomInfo's business for example "allows users to collaborate in the construction of its content by contributing information to their own profiles" (according to our Wikipedia article). That doesn't sound like independent coverage. Jigsaw/Crunchbase has the same business model; it's user-contributed (and the contributors to any one profile are normally officers involved with the company--I know this from first-hand experience--see also . Crunchbase also has a "Venture Program" in which the VCs [rather than company PR] submit info about the companies they have invested in, but that's not much more independent. Note that links to crunchbase.com are flagged by COIbot. I'm aware of one previous AfD where Crunchbased was used as source, and the result was delete) There is no coverage of Verasafe in Techcrunch proper (the publication run by the same people that run Crunchbase), which would be independent coverage if it existed, but it doesn't. I don't know what GlobalData might refer to, there are several companies with this name. Finally, the Lexis Nexis database covers "over 80 million companies", far more than wikipedia has articles, so I'd say that's too low a threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIR. One thing is clear however: Verasafe's people have been contributing to their Wikipedia article here and to this discussion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also if very sketchy data that Hoovers has about this company is up to date, the company has one employee and sales of $64,000 annually, which is very low for a company to be considered notable. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your original concern was that the article contained: "citations to third-party sources that don't actually mention the company, and that cursory web search doesn't turn up any such sources". The diverse group of editors on this page have taken a careful look at your concern and found many third-party sources that do mention the company, including highly authoritative sources. While your cursory web search might have not turned up many sources, a more in-depth analysis did yield a variety of good sources which have been discussed here. I would endorse the notion of marking this discussion as no consensus. 76.19.81.220 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.19.81.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sources offered fail GNG by several miles either by being indiscriminate/user-contributed databases or having only very brief mentions of Verasafe, in addition to the confusion with Versafe, which consumed a lot of space above. Can you summarize which independent sources actually cover Verasafe in depth? I found none. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * delete So they're a consultancy with a branding exercise. Who cares, and who is caring enough to write about them? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 20:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete non-notable organization. Paviliolive (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep They are a household name in some circles and deserve to be included.162.222.73.149 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — 162.222.73.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - Quite clearly fails GNG and CORPDEPTH, and the flurry of SPAs is concerning from a COI perspective (which of course is not provable and unnecessary to make deletion obvious). This is, of course, pending Cirt's follow up to elaborate on the extensive coverage he's alluded to but others have been unable to find. Certainly it couldn't rest on user-contributed sites and casual mentions of business trivia/data routinely dismissed in deletion discussions (the sort that would effectively nullify corpdepth). What did you search for on Google Scholar? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  17:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The usual combination of lack of significant notability and promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks WP:VRS. If more are provided, I'm sure admins will disregard the vote; if they're not, it's not WP:GNG. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above analysis of sourcing/typos. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – after a quick Google search, I found zero news reports concerning this company, three social networking profiles for the company, the company's website, and the Wikipedia page. That's just about it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above citations that have been found, and WP:IAR. Lack of coverage in cursory Google searches doesn't satisfy lack of CORPDEPTHThomasDelay (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC) — ThomasDelay (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What above citations? Many of the above posts about coverage are from Cirt, who says they exist but so far as provided only a link to a minor story about a different company. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  23:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability has to be established. That "lack of coverage doesn't mean lack of CORPDEPTH" is missing the point; it has to be shown to meet a notability guideline. If the only argument for keeping an article is that "not meeting notability doesn't prove it's not met", then that's a pretty clear sign that the article isn't notable. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, also per my comment above. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 *  keep  Rhododendrites please read the full discussion. There was a major source from US Postal Service that was discovered. Please review the earlier comments. ThomasDelay (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: ThomasDelay (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
 * ...Which has now been struck.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 01:03, 6 February 2014 (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.
 * 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.