Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracode

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veracode

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

Extensive and specific PROD mass removed without actually looking and listening to the concerns listed, instead with the basis that it can be fixed, but that's the thing: Advertisements that are so blatant including by having SPA accounts and advertising sources, therefore cannot be fixed as if it's the nature of it, we can therefore not accept it lest we actually become a PR webhost, everything listed is exactly what the company wants to advertise about itself, and sugarcoating or stating that's it something else otherwise is completely unhonest to what Wikipedia is battling each and every day, which is exact blatant advertising like this. We can make the necessary choices therefore which is to delete them onsight and immediately and show to others that we will delete theirs as quickly also. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I deprodded the article, but it was not "mass removed". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon article potential, source searches, and other variables. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - I stated this because I have strong questionability about this user literally removing over 2 dozen of my PRODs within minutes with statements of either "sources exist" or "PR can be fixed". As nominator, I can only express my serious concerns since these are starting to seem like hounding personal attacks. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Anyone can remove PRODs for any reason. If Northamerica was just removing your PRODs without giving a reason, maybe it would qualify as hounding. But each time Northamerica1000 deprodded, he provided a policy-based reason for doing so and often times even added sources to the article. Edits based on differing opinions on policy aren't personal attacks. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly targeting users is, however. If it edits like a duck, it might be a platypus, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no targeting. As I stated below, I patrol prod nominations at the All articles proposed for deletion category. It would be ridiculous to not deprod an article based upon which specific user prodded it, as though if users should first check the article contributions to see who prodded it, and then base their decision-making upon this variable, instead of objective criteria such as source searching. I base my deprods upon research, article potential, and other variables. As evidenced in the now ongoing discussion below, this can be considered as a somewhat controversial proposal for deletion that is worthy of further discussion at AfD. Please try to assume good faith. I will leave it at that, and thanks for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUNDING says that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." If someone PRODs numerous articles that are potentially notable, and someone who routinely patrols the PROD categories disagrees with those PRODs and removes them in the course of their normal Wikipedia-work, that's not hounding. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I routinely patrol prods listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. The nominator proposes a great deal of articles for deletion using prod. Focus on content, not contributors. The casting of WP:ASPERSIONS provides nothing regarding the topic's potential notability or lack thereof. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen plenty of blatantly promotional articles on WP, and this isn't one of them. It states what the company does, its history, etc., which is exactly what I would expect to see in an article about a company. I'm not a great fan of Gartner, but if they class Veracode as one of the leading application security testing companies (right up there with IBM and HP), that's a strong indication of notability. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Investors in the second paragraph? I think not - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. I'm unconvinced by the sourcing (the RS coverage is not organic but from promotional pushes), and Gartner are literally a sponsored content outlet, because that's what analysts do for a living - I'm boggled at the idea that paid analyst coverage confers notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Sponsored content outlet'? No, and you have no evidence for that assertion. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - What is an analyst's business model? - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is spun from sources of purest gossamer. There is no credible evidence of actual notability. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like Michig, I fail to see what is so promotional in this article. The worst puffery in the article is the company’s cloud-based service safeguards more than 600 organizations worldwide, including three of the top four banks in the Fortune 100 and more than 25 of the world’s top 100 brands. (emphasis mine) and the list of awards won. Now, if we remove the list of awards won on grounds of puffery and "churnalism", the next thing you know is that the article will be nominated for deletion (by the usual crew) because it fails WP:N. Gerard's assertions that Gartner is a "sponsored content outlet" ~~border on~~ are ridiculous; kindly nominate Magic Quadrant for deletion to test it. For all its shortcomings and bias, being listed (at the top of) on the Magic Quadrant is a major achievement by any company [1] so it passes WP:N with flying colors. No such user (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherited notability from other groups and companies however. Thr "advertising" have been stated above as it is, such as the fact half of eh article is literally for its own PR awaeds, and then the other parts are simply advertising what the business is and it's services; along with PR sources. SwisterTwister talk 14:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Quadrant got lucky in that it received independent criticism that was published - otherwise it would be a candidate for deletion. It also appears to be another non-notable product that is now able to use Wikipedia for promotion - imho Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no inherited notability - each article must stand on its own merits. This Wikipedia article on "Veracode" - is definitely a promotional piece. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig and No such user. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/incubate; the concerns listed above and the deletion paragraph make me believe this article needs some work to take the promotional tone out before it hits prime time on the main space. It may be a little WP:TOOSOON. Buffaboy ^talk 03:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on WP:SIGCOV in CNBC, Computing, Fortune, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Economist, for starters. And trouts to everyone griping and sniping here and assuming bad faith on the part of fellow editors. Not productive. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean to keep but can see both arguments. Now for puffery, take a look at Mark Kriegsman which is one of the See alsos as well as the two founders' vanity articles. This is the best of the lot, so perhaps merging the articles for each of the engineers in here might be cleanest. The style of this one seems reasonable to me: no (mis)uses at all of solution nor infrastructure, no Excessive Capital Letters for Very Important People and only one "platform". Yes, many of the sources are the usual "awards" which mean taking a journalist to lunch or buying a trade show booth. W Nowicki (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although possibly, but not necessarily certainly, on a slightly weaker level (unable to fully access some paywalled sources). Here's another source from Fortune: [2]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG due to sources available, and coverage in media. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the keep !votes have made a convincing case based on wikipedia guidelines and policies, with the highlighting of many sources that, upon review, support their claims. The delete !votes have presented an unconvincing case based on personal views of the article topic. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources mentioned in this AfD collectively meet the WP:CORP notability criterion. In particular there's the NYT piece, which I think seals the deal. /wiae /tlk 00:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll note that the Keep votes themselves either acknowledge there's not a lot of sourcing and that it's still "weak" or they simply say "Per user above"; therefore we must seriously and carefully consider such advertising articles regardless of whatever was said about them, because WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT still apply, especially for advertisements such as these. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In terms of analyzing !votes, it's important to be objective and balanced, rather than only focusing on keep !votes while ignoring the same types of rationales present in delete !votes. Note that one of the delete !votes early in the discussion states "there is no credible evidence of actual notability", but sources were later added to the discussion, which this does not appear to address. Regarding "per nom" types of !votes, two delete !votes are also of this nature, one of which provides some rationale, which another user has somewhat challenged, and one of which only states two words, "per WP:SPAM", which is essentially in a "per nom" style relative to the nomination. Also, promotional tone can be addressed by simply copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the article about Veracode today because I was looking for introductory background information and some external links. Sure it would be great to have something with 0% blatant PR and advertising, but I'd accept 90% content that needs to be ignored just to get 10%. OK. Maybe I got 3% with this article. But it was not a waste of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.14.94 (talk • contribs)
Keep Normally, for topics such as this, I'm usually for deletion. But from my perspective, there seem to be just enough sources to indicate notability. Also, this company appears to be first in innovating new methods for detecting software vulnerabilities that hackers have exploited beginning in 2007 or 2008 up to the present day. The game has shifted and this company is addressing that shift in a seemingly novel way - coverage in some of the sources reflects this. I do think the article should be rewritten because there is no need to maintain an overly promotional and jargony tone in this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (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.