Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/BackConnect

How does this page in its current state warrant deletion when others such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudflare and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapsula exist without problem?

"Zero gnews hits" - It shows up in multiple articles if searched in google news.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 articles easily meet notability . LibStar (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just like BackConnect easily meets notability for being the first to identify Mirai botnet and making national news. Just because BackConnect is new does not mean its articles are not notable. And you are false in your "zero gnews hits" claim which was your foundation for your non notable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesede (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any connection with the backconnect business? LibStar (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the available information, such as that found on Crunchbase, the company is less than a year old, and was founded on April 27, 2016. (Not sure if this date is reliable though, as on quick search it seems that there was activity before this. It is a bit hard to be notable in less than a year. There are a few articles about the company, but they mostly seem negative and cover the company's alleged questionable practices involving BGP Hijacks. That's a bit questionable to say it identified the Mirai botnet, and there seem to be some claims that it was involved in the Mirai botnet, particularly in the hack on the Krebs website. (Don't shoot the messenger.) Its Twitter account was started in August 2016, has 35 tweets and 74 followers. That would be indicative of a lack of notability, although that alone doesn't tell the whole story. There definitely is a lack of notability, at least IMO. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 10:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]