Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid7

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 -- Y not? 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid7[edit]

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

I was thinking of tagging this for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, but noticed that that has previously been declined, to my mind inexplicably. Even disregarding the blatancy of the promotion here I can't see any notability. The sources in the article, and others that I have found by following the searches linked above, are all press releases or advertorial content, with none of them being independent. This article came to my attention because I just received a spam email from this company inviting me to register for a web seminar, but I have tried not to let my personal annoyance about that cloud my judgement in nominating this for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is indeed very promotional, perhaps not enough to be speedy deleted but more than enough to be worrying. Also appears to lack notability, per our usual guidelines. I see that the Metasploit Project article is related and, at first glance, also appears to have notability issues. I'll look over it in more detail and might AfD it as well. Them From Space 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 21:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect to Metasploit Project. There are many press releases out there, but aside from a few software product reviews, I was unable to find independent articles about the company itself. The article contains a good bit of advertising and would need a major cleaning. Unless I have missed something in the sea of PR, this topic falls below notability thresholds for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Rapid7 is often mentioned in the context of Metasploit, hence a redirect to Metasploit Project may be useful. But I think Metasploit is likely highly notable--it garners more than 1400 GScholar hits and entire books [1],[2] have been written about it. Agreed that the Metasploit Project article needs work. --Mark viking (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting your company quoted a lot as security experts isn't enough to have solid reliable sourcing - few reliable sources are actually discussing the company itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Businessweek and Xconomy links would appear to satisfy NOTE, especially the later. What is the argument for dismissing this one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, having an employee quoted on a topic doesn't constitute notable coverage for the company itself - Business week is not talking about Rapid7 at all - they're discussing security issues. Classic incidental mentions, which don't constitute reliable source coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Businessweek overview is pretty obviously provided by the company itself—only inept marketing people write rubbish like "...which empower organizations to proactively obtain.."—and take a look at how the paragraphs in the Xconomy link start: "According to Rapid7...", "According to a company announcement...", "Rapid7 said...". This is not independent coverage of anything except that Rapid7's marketing department works hard to get its name mentioned. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2013 (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.