Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thycotic

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thycotic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article fails WP:NCORP. The references provide either superficial levels of coverage or are based on news releases by the company. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.- Mr X 🖋 23:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as G11 and likely UPE, per unaddressed concerns on creator's Talk page: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Company is similar to other cybersecurity companies that already have wiki pages up, examples: Datto, JAL, as per WP:NCORP article is sourced by reliable, independent sources.LTMajorPayne (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Keep, Article has solid foundations and while I do agree it needs a bit of work establishing some of it's claims, I think the current sources being cited are more than enough to avoid a deletion as per WP:NCORP. F252421c (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— F252421c (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. I believe there's enough coverage to warrant an article, there are now more than 15 references in the article, and that helps establish notoriety. The article should be improved with newer references as the company gets more coverage but as of right now I don't see a reason to delete this. Nalfien (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nalfien: The Wikipedia community has by consensus come up with a set of criteria to determine if a company is notable (worthy of an article about it on Wikipedia). Please see WP:NCORP, which explains that there are several criteria which must all be met for a source to count towards establishing the notability of a company. Those criteria have changed this year, and are more exacting then they were when you previously contributed to Wikipedia. I have left you a message on your user talk page with some links that will help you as you participate in your first deletion discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expanding on my nomination:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Inc.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	One mention. Says nothing about the company, just that it co-produced a report
Seekingalpha.com	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Substantial, independent coverage by an analyst
techcrunch.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Two mentions in listings; no coverage
tech.co	N	N	Y	N	N	The new year's resolution of the founder; nothing about the company
crn.com.au	Y	N	Y	N	N	Clearly based on a press release
forbes.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	A paragraph about one of the company's products, in a listing. Nothing about the company
wboc.com	Y	N	N	N	N	Press release issued by the company
infopoint-security.de	Y	N	N	N	N	Article likely based on press release
eweek.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Based on press release - Thycotic talking about itself
nbc-2.com					N	Failed verification - nothing on the page about the company
fortune.com	N	N	Y	N	N	One paragraph announcing an acquisition
inc.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	Just a listing - and appearing 2,260th in something is no indication of notability
crunchbase.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	Mention of an acquisition
securityboulevard.com	N	N	?	N	N	Press release; 436th out of 500 in a listing
deloitte.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	436th out of 500 in a listing
Total qualifying sources					1	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Reasoning for Techcrunch.com (No. 3 reference) – Thycotic is better than Cyber Ark. and everyone it Reference listed as containing two references but no coverage. The article is recognizing established security giants such as Symantec while somewhat briefly highlighting multiple up-and-coming security companies including Okta, Auth0 and SailPoint — and Thycotic. This article is not meant to profile companies with extensive background information. Rather, it is providing a quick scouting report on the several growing companies that are innovating in the various sectors of security, including “Identity” where Thycotic is listed as an innovator. The coverage is of the industry and possible changes, not of specific companies. Secondly, the reference is marked as lacking significance, but TechCrunch is one of the top technology news sources in the world. In this article, published by one of the most-read tech news outlets, Thycotic is listed as a company that could step up as it follows in the footsteps of well-established firms such as Palo Alto Networks.

@LTMajorPayne: WP:CORPDEPTH makes is clear that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists" counts as trivial coverage, not significant coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for CRN.au (No. 5) not being independent/secondary is invalid – Samira Sarraf is an independent journalist and wrote the article in his own words, including sources ‘According to Scott Hagenus…’ If you click https://www.crn.com.au/author/samira-sarraf-853030, it shows his independent articles. His official Muck Rack profile is: https://muckrack.com/samira-sarraf/articles. Therefore, explanation “Clearly based on a press release” is inaccurate, subjective and invalid.

@LTMajorPayne: WP:ORGIND makes the distinction between the journalist being independent, and the content being independent. If the content is simply a regurgitation of a press release then the content is not independent. It is clear that this is based on a news release because other publications, for example this one, produced a similar article on the same date. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for Forbes (No. 6) not being significant/secondary is invalid - This attribution is for product Secret Server (which also mentions the company), not for company. Therefore, explanation “A paragraph about one of the company's products, in a listing. Nothing about the company” is false and invalid.

@LTMajorPayne: The review of Thycotic's product isn't written by Forbes. It is written by someone from G2 Technology Group. We don't know if their view is reliable. The article merely mentions Thycotic, so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Multiple such mentions on the web don't make a company worthy of an encyclopedia article about them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've added several more references to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) 03:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LTMajorPayne: None of these help establish notability:

www.channelpartnersonline.com: Article about a survey conducted by Thycotic, with a quote from Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage about the company, not independent
www.securitynow.com: Article about security in Microsoft Windows, with a quote from Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage, not independent
www.foxnews.com: Article about election security, with a quote from Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage, not independent
www.usatoday.com: Article about election security, written by Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage, not independent
www.bloomberg.com: Information provided by Arellia Corporation, a subsidiary of Thycotic - not independent
www.bloomberg.com: Information provided by a subsidiary of Thycotic - not independent

Delete per nom and K.e.coffman Catrìona (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Also review all contributions by the creator, who is pretty clearly and undisclosed paid-for editor. Pretty much all of them are paid-for spam yellow page entries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 18 December 2018 (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.