Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity Systems

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Systems[edit]

[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:NORG. Sources are routine business announcements, no WP:SIGCOV found. Article reads like an advertisement. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1. Sources such as the referenced NATO website, NSA publications and Books are not business announcements.

2. What part sounds like an advertisement? Despite this Verity Systems company having many products, only two products that have been referenced very directly and clearly are mentioned. How about you remove the bit which you feel sounds like an advertisement, or point it out for removal?

3. Businesses that operate in the security sector are not usually seeking too much public attention. Finding information about such companies is difficult; they do not appear in newspapers, television, radio, or other publicity avenues as much as you would like. There is no contention about the notability of Verity Systems; given its size, popularity of products, and the agencies using its products. I, therefore, feel that the best course of action is that we make this page about the company better by improving it and its referencing, and that Wikipedia does not delete the page LtRisen (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "referenced nato website (here) is a product blurb. No more, no less. It does not show notability.
All of it.
If they do not seek attention (that is, there are few to no sources), they fail WP:NORG. Wikipedia demands sources for a company to demonstrate notability. Kleuske (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about the NSA publication and books? Are they blurbs too? Notability is not only determined by popularity. LtRisen (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are significant coverage or demonstrate the notability of Verity Systems. cagliost (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verity Systems logo.png should be deleted too. It has been uploaded supposedly under a Creative Commons licence, but I see no evidence it has actually been licenced by Verity Systems under such a licence. cagliost (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagliost: It is PD-textlogo, and I have relicensed it as such. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Detailed criteria for a promotional tone can vary, but here is my guideline. Each paragraph that mentions something is "global", "around the world", "worldwide", "innovation", or "solutions" should be removed. Those terms provide no information about the subject, only serve to promote it. Then there is not much left. So even if the case might be made that the company is notable, this article is clearly not it. At best, keep onw or two of the most reliable sources and redo all the text. Also find it odd to say "Pacerville USA" since it is such a small town in the hills. At least Placerville, California would give context. W Nowicki (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify (if notable). I'm not convinced as to its notability; there's some coverage but I'm not sure that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. On top of that, the article certainly fails WP:PROMO. Taken together, these would make my primary preference to be deletion. However, in the case that there becomes a rough consensus that the topic is notable, I really don't think the article is ready for the mainspace, owing to strong promotional tone concerns. In that case, we should allow time and space for the draft's improvement until its tone is ready for mainspace through draftification; I believe that this article should not remain in the mainspace as-is. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep It~~ Coverage is proven and successive editors have cleaned up areas of contention in the page content. LtRisen (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck - please only offer one keep/delete opinion in an AfD discussion. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted - Noted, with thanks. LtRisen (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid for spam, bad faith article. Cites black hat SEO spam sources. Creator blocked. MER-C 13:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @MER-C:For posterity sake, what are some of these black hat SEO spam sources? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check each of the references in turn, hover over the links, then go to the home page on each website. It should be obvious by just how many gratuitous spam articles there are. MER-C 07:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity spam sourced to blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:54, 7 October 2021 (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.