Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravelin Technology

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravelin Technology

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

trivial awards, so this is basically a continuation of their promotional campaign. The references reflect the campaign, and are just extensions of their PR. We shouldn't be part of it . DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rather promotional. Account that wrote it is likely a sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons to keep: While the company is less than 3 years old, there's public value in exposing what fraud detection companies do, as cybercrime is a growing field of interest in the public sphere. Further examples of the interest of wikipedia in the field can be found in the work invested into these articles: Credit card fraud, Carding (fraud), Forter, Feedzai, Identity theft, Data analysis techniques for fraud detection, Riskified, Trusteer, ThreatMetrix, Verifi, CyberSource. I think *User:Edwardx already made significant improvments in trimming non neutral language in the article. Buffer (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Buffer. — fortunavelut luna 13:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc James and DGG. Promotional article that is excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. The awards aren't enough to even be borderline under our notability guidelines, and even if they were, the status of this page as promotional is enough to delete under WP:DEL-REASON, because after removing the promotional content, you would simply have a directory entry, which is also excluded under NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only "improved" it to the extent of making it less bad. It is still promotional, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Probably WP:TOOSOON. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 20 July 2017 (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.