Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAINT (software)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Naraht's newly added sources (specifically SC Magazine and TechTarget) show that SAINT meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 22:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAINT (software)[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)

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Sources cited in the article include a dead link to a review, a page describing a related specification, a directory listing, and two pages from the company's website. Google Scholar only returns a couple of passing mentions. — Newslinger talk 13:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like?

https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/auditing/auditing-vulnerability-tools-identify-today-039-s-threats-business-performance-35642
https://www.scmagazine.com/saint-security-suite/review/7102/
https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/feature/SAINT-8-Security-Suite-Vulnerability-management-product-overview
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/775d/ed35d7940b94b5bc01d568d472e59fd24775.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=bTfLfr3erUEC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=saint+network+security+scanner&source=bl&ots=DNqpUtixYS&sig=CDeMM7SiTh-sQe_-T0L2RUMlXDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiShNuUu-jcAhVInFkKHf8gA744KBDoATAEegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=saint%20network%20security%20scanner&f=false

Obviously, these should actually be in the article, I'm just curious whether you think that integrating these would be a good start. I have a slight WP:COI, I worked for the company from mid-2005 to mid-2008.Naraht (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Thanks for providing these sources! It looks like the SC Magazine review and the TechTarget overview qualify SAINT under WP:GNG. Although I don't think the other sources provide significant coverage (for the notability test), all of these sources look like good additions for the article. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. — Newslinger talk 22:48, 12 August 2018 (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.