Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ForgeRock

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. The sources provided by Northamerica1000 are solid and give plenty of weight to his keep vote. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ForgeRock[edit]

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

Another case of noticeable advertorialism and puffery, nothing actually convincing since the listed sources are simply press releases, PR and puff-speak, trivial passing mentions, funding and finance news and the like; my own searches are simply finding this too so there's, all in all, simply nothing substantial. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial content & insufficient coverage in RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Examples of bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable independent coverage to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning that I've left on my talk page. Note to closing admin: I previously closed this discussion but I was requested to undo my closure. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to note that the listed sources here are not actually what they may seem at first, looking at them simply found a few paragraphs each which even then included interviews and funding and financing information, the current concerns are about this thus still suggest PR attempts. I question whether the Keep users kept this to mind. Note that the BizJourbals has been confirmed with past consensus at AfDs for basically bring a notorious source for local PR and advertising. Thus the weight of these Keep votes are still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Assertions of "PR attempts" should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. All eight articles I provided above are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. Also, if articles have some content about funding, but also cover other aspects of a topic, they should not be dismissed merely due to the presence of the former as some sort of automatic disqualifier. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 14 August 2016 (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.