Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vysk Communications, Inc.


 * 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. No substantive arguments to keep, while those to delete are based on established policies and guidelines. -- Kinu  t/c 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Vysk Communications, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relatively Non Notable company Uncletomwood (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this company (Vysk Communications) is a direct competitor with other mobile phone case manufacturers, e.g,, Mophie, Otter Box, etc. and mobile encryption manufacturers, e.g., Blackphone, companies that have long-standing Wikipedia pages and whose content and format are extremely similar to that provided here. I confess that I am unfamiliar with the notion of "asserted importance" or how that IS provided on the other named company pages but NOT for the Vysk page. The topic of mobile security and hacking is of tremendous importance in the current news and it is in this space that our firm operates. If you can clarify what specifically satisfies the "asserted importance" requirement, I may be able to edit the document to satisfy this criterion.


 * Also, I confess I'm a bit confused about the request to add external links to this new page. I've done several from other pages that are directly germane to this new one, and in response I receive email exhortations to not post such external links. I thus have no idea what is being requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankennethswain (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Marginal - I've trimmed the marketing bafflegab a bit, but that doesn't mean I think it's notable - although the Grauniad story is a start. My own rule of thumb, which I appreciate is not the normal rule, is that if no-one who doesn't work there cares enough about a company to do serious editing of its page, it should go, because if the page stays it will just be junk anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all close to minimally convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  18:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A few additional comments worthy of consideration: 1) Regarding the notion of notability, importance, etc: There is no denying that the topics of mobile hacking and cybersecurity are immensely important in the current political and sociological climate. Given that the company operates in this space, it seems at least reasonable that disseminating knowledge about its existence, operations, and products is a useful endeavor, particularly given that Vysk products are squarely targeted at users of mobile phones, which the vast majority of citizens worldwide now own and use, frequently for very confidential purposes. 2) If, instead, the concern is a broader one in which the very ethos of Wikipedia (inherently a non-commercial one, which I can totally understand) is somehow threatened, then it seems to me more than a little arbitrary and capricious to conclude that a Vysk article has no place here when, in fact, other nearly identical companies (Blackphone, Silent Circle, to name but a couple) have longstanding and uncontested articles.

Just my opinion - many thanks for reading... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankennethswain (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to have accidentally forgotten to disclose your conflict of interest. In particular, paid editing must be disclosed.
 * Just because a topic is notable does not mean an individual company is. Agriculture is notable but Bob's House of Corn isn't.
 * Your other argument is mostly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, leaving aside the straw man about the "very ethos of Wikipedia". Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This thread just became officially academic, as we've elected to take the entire thing down. I've deleted all page content. Please do whatever you have to remove all remaining traces, including this comment thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankennethswain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 July 2016 (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.