Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrayent

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrayent[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 the notability guideline for companies. In my check for sources I did find a few that could potentially contribute to notability; this article from The Verge and this mention in Data Privacy for the Smart Grid. However, The Verge article is only a little more than a passing mention in an article that mainly focuses on the company's competitors, and the book only mentions Arrayent as an example of IoT privacy concerns, both of which are considered trivial coverage when determining companies' notability. All other sources are either non-independent, unreliable, or only provide routine coverage (mostly relating to Prodea's acquisition of the company). – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell when it comes to the sourcing and otherwise this is a pretty WP:MILL tech company that doesn't have anything notable about it. Sure, they might have some notable costumers, but notability isn't inherited. What matters is if there are multiple in-depth reliable sources discussing the company and there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2020 (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.