Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CipherCloud (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CipherCloud

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

Finishing one of many incomplete nominations by User:Mikefromnyc - this is the only one with a provided rationale, on the talkpage: "This page is obvious marketing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefromnyc (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) ". I also note that the page was deleted as being promotional around three months ago, but the creator of this version claims it's different. I have no opinion for now; I see no problems that can't be surmounted by editing (specifically, promotional language as Mike believes or soapboxing as I see), but need second opinion about WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 07:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify. The page is indeed very marketing in tone, with mostly direct quotes of the founder and some discussion that is not really on the company itself but the general idea of network encryption. Many stylistic errors as well, such as a misleading wikilink to ArcSight making it see like the founder is notable. That would not disqualify it per se, but generally private company should have a fairly high bar of providing reliable independent sources. Maybe if the company survives long enough to go public or appear in more in-depth publications, it could be covered. But probably best to start over at that point with something less promotional. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any "misleading wikilink to ArcSight." None are listed here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the founder (Pravin Kothari) is a piped (easter-egg) link to ArcSight#History. Ansh6 6 6 23:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Marketing tone is not a valid reason for deletion. Notability abundantly established by references included in article. ~KvnG 18:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per KvnG's rationale. The references used are reliable and should establish the article's notability. The article should have been tagged first for promotional tone/advertising and not for an AfD. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:24, 24 October 2013 (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.