Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EdgeWave

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. Consensus is that the company does not qualify for a Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

EdgeWave

EdgeWave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Came up in one of my routine searches for articles that mention Network Products Guide, a pay-for-play award. Started trimming the promotion, but noticed almost all the sources were primary (the company's website) and the few secondary sources don't appear to mention the org. CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Confused as to why it would be deleted? It's a company website and all information is verifiable. Considering almost all companies have similar Wiki pages, why would this is any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, What do we need to do to update this page to meet guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is "we"? The company?

For a company to merit an article in Wikipedia, there must be significant coverage of it in reliable secondary sources, independent of the company (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Furthermore, articles must be based primarily on such sources. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations.

Most companies do not have pages on Wikipedia. If you find a similarly sourced article on another company, the essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why that doesn't matter in this forum. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What determines "significant coverage"? 5...10.... 15 articles? The company, and it's security experts, has significant coverage. I would be happy to provide sources and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Significant coverage, and in fact the rest of the guideline, is a good read. In general number does not matter as much as the quality and depth of how the sources go. Specifically simply press releases (that is mostly reposted as-is) and routinal reportage (like board member or personnel changes) almost never count to notability. According to my own search, the subject's collaboration with Huawei [1] might suggest a slightly better potential than the thousands we turn away via speedy delete, but is still lacking in very compelling evidence of importance to solidly keep. PS. If you are working for the company you have an inherent conflict of interest where there are more things to be aware of. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand. What can be done to improve the page to have it notability? EdgeWave has partnered with the USTA to provide security for past 7 years. If that is the sort of notability that's needed, I'll update sources and provide more references. - Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The cited source does not help prove notability because it is not independent of the company; it's a regurgitation of this press release. Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find anything but press releases and routine announcements (company X bought company Y). Note that there are two accounts, Memerick and Swreynolds that are single purpose accounts having edited only this article. It would be good for those users to read conflict of interest and sockpuppetry, in case they are not aware of those policies. If those do not apply, then "userfy" may be a solution, with a pointer to the articles for creation process, where they can get some guided experience in editing and article creation. LaMona (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Lots of press releases and info from the company website that fails WP:ORGIND. I would usually consider U-T San Diego (the erstwhile Union-Tribune) an acceptable source, but in this case even its first two and last paragraphs are lifted straight from a company press release. The 1999 Windows IT Pro article appears independent, but says almost nothing about the company (or predecessor as it was then). The brief merger announcement in Infosecurity Magazine also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All in all, does not meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2015 (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.