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.
@
Pigsonthewing: As it is a company
WP:NCORP applies. There is many companies that are leaders in their particularly field, but unless they have coverage that proves that, that they are notable, then they are not notable All the coverage here, all of it, is generated by the company in one form or another, as a startup. All that kind of self-generated coverage is explicitly forbidden by NCORP. NCORP was rewritten about 4-5 years ago to exclude these types of coverage, because it is self-generated. There is no
WP:SECONDARY sourcing here. I'll go through the references and I will show you. scope_creepTalk09:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. As a paid editor working on behalf of Netskope, I would like to contest the removal of the
Netskope article because multiple sources meet the
WP:SIRS criteria. At least half of the citations include more than funding-round or press release information. I also have additional, new sources that I believe are relevant to suggest on the
Talk:Netskope page.
DebSchell (
talk)
19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Lets examine the first 15 references as its a good round number:
Ref 1
[1]] The cloud 100 presented by Salesforce. Corporate produced Forbes document that profiles each company. States on the article, its an advertisement. Non-RS.
Ref 2
[2] Routine funding news. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH, specifically, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, Funding news.
Ref 3 Magic quadrant. A Gartner produced document, prepared by extensive interviews by the company and the software. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
Ref 4
[3] Techcrunch. Says it all. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine funding news.
Ref 5 Dead link.
Ref 6
[4] I don't it is significant. "Earlier this month, Netskope came out of stealth mode with $21 million in funding to combat shadow IT". Two sentences is a passing mentions, failing
WP:SIRS as not significant.
Ref 7
[5] Job fulfillment annoucement. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTHof the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel,
Of the 15 references. 8 are routine funding news, 1 is plain advertisement, 1 is Forbes contributor site (Non-RS), 1 dead-link, 3 are patent information is non-RS. No patents on Wikipedia. It is a
WP:SPS source, which is 14 out of the 15. The last one the Garner Magic Quadrant, which fails
WP:ORGIND, as its due process at work and can't happen without massive input from the company. None of these references pass
WP:SIRS. It is typical of startup, created by paid staff. It fails the
WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk23:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have to agree with Scope creep's assessment of the sources above, and the remaining sources are much the same. The article's subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. Even if we accept the "Cloud 100" piece at face value as contributing towards notability (which is debatable), it's a moot point because it does nothing on its own; the article needs multiple reliable sources and it quite simply does not have that. -
Aoidh (
talk)
08:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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 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.
@
Pigsonthewing: As it is a company
WP:NCORP applies. There is many companies that are leaders in their particularly field, but unless they have coverage that proves that, that they are notable, then they are not notable All the coverage here, all of it, is generated by the company in one form or another, as a startup. All that kind of self-generated coverage is explicitly forbidden by NCORP. NCORP was rewritten about 4-5 years ago to exclude these types of coverage, because it is self-generated. There is no
WP:SECONDARY sourcing here. I'll go through the references and I will show you. scope_creepTalk09:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. As a paid editor working on behalf of Netskope, I would like to contest the removal of the
Netskope article because multiple sources meet the
WP:SIRS criteria. At least half of the citations include more than funding-round or press release information. I also have additional, new sources that I believe are relevant to suggest on the
Talk:Netskope page.
DebSchell (
talk)
19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Lets examine the first 15 references as its a good round number:
Ref 1
[1]] The cloud 100 presented by Salesforce. Corporate produced Forbes document that profiles each company. States on the article, its an advertisement. Non-RS.
Ref 2
[2] Routine funding news. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH, specifically, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, Funding news.
Ref 3 Magic quadrant. A Gartner produced document, prepared by extensive interviews by the company and the software. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
Ref 4
[3] Techcrunch. Says it all. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine funding news.
Ref 5 Dead link.
Ref 6
[4] I don't it is significant. "Earlier this month, Netskope came out of stealth mode with $21 million in funding to combat shadow IT". Two sentences is a passing mentions, failing
WP:SIRS as not significant.
Ref 7
[5] Job fulfillment annoucement. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTHof the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel,
Of the 15 references. 8 are routine funding news, 1 is plain advertisement, 1 is Forbes contributor site (Non-RS), 1 dead-link, 3 are patent information is non-RS. No patents on Wikipedia. It is a
WP:SPS source, which is 14 out of the 15. The last one the Garner Magic Quadrant, which fails
WP:ORGIND, as its due process at work and can't happen without massive input from the company. None of these references pass
WP:SIRS. It is typical of startup, created by paid staff. It fails the
WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk23:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have to agree with Scope creep's assessment of the sources above, and the remaining sources are much the same. The article's subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. Even if we accept the "Cloud 100" piece at face value as contributing towards notability (which is debatable), it's a moot point because it does nothing on its own; the article needs multiple reliable sources and it quite simply does not have that. -
Aoidh (
talk)
08:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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.