Checkmarx ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am here to request the undeletion of the article Checkmarx ( /info/en/?search=Checkmarx). It was previously deleted numerous times and then blocked from recreation. It was deleted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. You can refer to the previous link for the deletion discussions associated with the content.

First, I am not receiving compensation to write this article. I read the guidelines on conflict of interest and want to make sure that is clear. I do have a connection with the company which is another reason I am here. I have created a draft in my sandbox that I would like reviewed and if appropriate, have the article unblocked and restored to the version I created. I believe it is non-promotional in tone and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines.

The reason I feel it warrants undeletion is because the last deletion was in 2013. Prior to that time, the company had little press that showed it to be notable. Unfortunately, it appears that people tried to create and cram the article into Wikipedia anyway. I cannot apologize for that as I was not associated with those creations. However, I would like to show you a few things that have made the company notable since its last deletion in 2013.

Since 2013, the company has received a ton of press coverage in reliable sources, both in Hebrew and in English. They can be found through a quick Google search on Google News - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22checkmarx%22&tbm=nws

The article in my sandbox can be edited to how you feel appropriate. I feel it is non promotional, but ask that you review and edit it if you feel it is not. I am just hoping for two things here. The first is that the draft be reviewed for its content and adjusted as you see fit for Wikipedia standards. The second is that it be undeleted and the draft in my sandbox be used as the article.

I requested user MBisanz consider in deleting the article, but was told to come here because of the numerous previous deletions which I completely understand.

Thank you for your consideration.-- Weirdedsultry ( talk) 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This has been deleted 5 times:there were two successive speedy deletions, followed by 4 consecutive afds closing as delete (one under a variant name). The reasons for the deletion were not just lack of notability, but promotionalism. The article in your sandbox at User:Weirdedsultry/sandbox would probably be deleted for lack of notability, but it's hard to predict. I know I would make the argument that being on a fast20 list is an indication that the company is not yet notable. The article in Jewish Business News is essentially PR, and very similar to press releases about the companyin other sources. SalomLife 's article is blatant PR. The Inc.article is an article about multiple companies. ``

Thank you for the comments. I agree that there was probably PR involved in the previous articles. For the current, what would you suggest for the references? There are tons available, but I am not sure the ones Wikipedia would accept. I read the guidelines but obviously don't fully understand based on your comments. I have looked through many references and thought those were good.-- Weirdedsultry ( talk) 23:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I think that part of the issue with the sandbox copy sources is that so many of them give off the impression that they're heavily based on press releases. They sort of have the PR buzz feel to them, especially this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I see what you are saying. I guess the way I looked at these is even though they were originally alerted from a press release, the sources that wrote the story did not simply reprint the press release. Since they have editorial standards, they would have fact checked the press release before writing a story with information contained in the press release. Most news from companies starts with a press release. An example would be Google’s recent announcement that it was creating a parent company called Alphabet. Despite it being a press release in the beginning, reliable sources picked up and ran with the story after fact checking with Google and other sources. Not arguing, just trying to show you how I was looking at things and not trying to spam content from press releases.

That aside, there are some additional references that I found. Actually, one was brought to my attention by DGG so I cannot take credit for it. Here they are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

I guess what I am looking for here is not perfection, but the opportunity to create an article on a notable company. The article I created can be changed if necessary to meet guidelines, I am just not understanding the exact way to do it in order to satisfy everyone’s concerns with the references. If you check Google, you will see that there are numerous in depth sources such as the ones I provided. Hopefully these will show that the company is notable and that the creation of the article be allowed.

Again, sorry if I misunderstand any of the policies and I in no way want to spam an article in Wikipedia. Thanks for being corrigible with me and providing advice up to this point. Any help that you can afford me would be greatly appreciated.

I want to thank you for taking the time to review the information I have provided and understand your position regardless of the decision made. -- Weirdedsultry ( talk) 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. I took a look at the references in the sandbox draft. All of them strike me as either rehashes of press releases and/or routine coverage of funding or acquisition announcements. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, article has a long history with several deletions & AFDs over a period of a number of years, with the primary concerns being non-notability and promotion. At this point we'd need to see that the company in question has had a significant leap forward in notability with which to overturn years worth of consensus to delete it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply