Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vectra AI (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vectra AI[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Citation #3, #5, #6, and #8 (4 out of 9) are sources that are primary and not independent of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This talks about the company [1] and a company discussion paper by PwC [2] Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various articles that are not PRs mentioning that the company found a vulnerability in Microsoft Teams [3] [4] [5] and an article on Nasdaq [6]GetMeTheMoon (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still feel this debate could do with a little bit more input to firm up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - my initial reaction was to argue for "keep" as the nomination is malformed. If four of the nine sources in the article aren't in-depth and independent, then that means 5 are. But looking at those remaining sources, 1 is not independent (company's former website), 2 looks in-depth and independent, 4 is not independent (paper produced by topic), 7 is a list, and 9 looks independent. So I think there's two good sources in the article. I don't think the sources brought up in the above discussion are all that great, a lot of quoting the company, but added together I think a somewhat-useful NPOV and V article can be created for our readers, per WP:WHYN. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:46, 15 December 2023 (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.