Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdfense
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Crowdfense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [1] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.
- While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.
- Thanks,
Scaledish! Talkish? Statish.00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC) - oppose deletion, keep It clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements, and none of the deletion criteria apply.
- 1. Notability (WP:N)
- It has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources: ** la Repubblica: “Vita da cacciatore di bachi informatici. ‘Vi racconto il grande mercato dello spionaggio digitale’”.[1] ** Vice: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Startup Offers $3 Million to Anyone Who Can Hack the iPhone”.[2] Joseph Cox, “As Phones Get Harder to Hack, Zero Day Vendors Hunt for Router Exploits”.[3] ** TechCrunch: Lorenzo Franceschi‑Bicchierai, “Price of zero‑day exploits rises as companies harden products against hackers”.[4] ** SC Media: “Crowdfense expands exploit acquisition program”.[5] ** Intelligence Online: “UAE : Abu Dhabi‑based vulnerability researcher Crowdfense undergoes a small revolution”.[6] “Emerging SIGINT powers seek own cyber‑bounty hunters”.[7]
- 2. Verifiability & Reliable Sources (WP:V, WP:RS)
- All statements are supported by reputable third‑party publications; no self‑published sources are used except for uncontroversial corporate details (founding date, headquarters).
- 3. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV)
- The article neutrally describes Crowdfense’s business model, pricing, and ethical considerations, with proper attribution (e.g. “According to TechCrunch…”, “Vice reports…”).
- 4. Deletion Criteria
- It is not a trivial or ephemeral subject, nor promotional spam, and contains no copyright or BLP issues.
- In summary, it satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV.
- == References ==