In the time since this page was deleted and salted, the company has had a fair amount of coverage regarding a study they did on WordPress. After talking with the deleting admin about unsalting the page title, I was referred to make a case here. Neo12345292 (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list some of this press coverage, with links to any online articles? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the Hebrew article, which I can't read, it looks like only the Network World article provides any substantial information on Checkmarx itself beyond simply introducing the company as a security firm. I'm not familiar with the publication so don't know whether it would be considered a reliable source. If it is then perhaps it, in combination with the totality of the brief mentions in coverage of the vulnerability itself, may establish the company's notability. Without further information and evidence of consensus from other editors I'm hesitant to endorse recreation of the article, particularly since it's going to require constant vigilance to curb the spamming and other promotional/COI edits. In this case we need to be very sure that the subject of the article has indeed achieved notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew article does not discuss Checkmarx in any more depth than the CRN article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not seeing anything substantial/in-depth enough to overturn a very strong consensus. Given the bad history of this article, we'd need to see some really major new notability to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the article's history on Wikipedia means it has a higher bar to overcome now. I think the bar for notability should be the same as for any other article. I wouldn't personally want to write an article based on the sources shown here because I see them as inadequate, but I note that the quality of sourcing is similar to other articles in Category:Networking software companies. Is there a general lack of decent sources about networking software corporations?—S MarshallT/C 01:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the bar for notability shouldn't be set any higher for this article, or for any other article where the subject appears to have a history of abusing Wikipedia. However, what we can and should do in such cases is to give extra scrutiny to any claims or evidence of notability. For example, recent reincarnations of the Checkmarx article included several impressive-sounding claims supported by sources which superficially looked to be reliable, but after some investigation turned out to be not independent of the subject. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
