Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecureMySocial

SecureMySocial

SecureMySocial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jersey92 with the following rationale "Improved article". Unfortunately, I still see only passing, business-as-normal, routine coverage. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep WP:RS in the article and in Google News exist that establish sufficient notability. Google News shows 236 results not all are good but more than enough are.--Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I added multiple WP:RS when removing the ProD. Easily passes WP:CORP with “multiple independent sources.” There are many more to choose from if you click “Find sources” above, but use the ones that are not really WP:INHERITORG references for the founder.--Jersey92 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- lack of independent sourcing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH strongly suggests that it's too soon for this company to have an encyclopedia entry. Sample coverage:

• "Stopping Fake News On Facebook Is Actually Simple. Here Is How I ... Inc.com-Nov 29, 2016... When I founded SecureMySocial, my goal was to create technology that ... Since then SecureMySocial has been blocking fake news in such a ..."

This is hardly independent sourcing. The article discusses funding and partnerships; this is not encyclopedically relevant content and belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not one of the WP:RS cited in the article. K.e.coffman Did you look at the ones cited? They are independent. There are literally hundreds of results to the Find sources above. As Clean-up-wiki-guy pointed out "not all are good but more than enough are."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey92 (talk • contribs) 14:00, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Foebes source used in the article is a contributed story based on an interview; sample:

• "I recently interviewed noted cybersecurity expert and columnist, Joseph Steinberg. For over a decade, Steinberg has focused significant attention on the human aspects of information security; his latest invention in this regard is his recently launched SecureMySocial, a novel technology that protects businesses and their employees by warning people in real time if they are making potentially problematic social media posts. Steinberg discussed with me five important steps..." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That reference was cited only to show who founded it which is discussed by the Forbes writer before the interview and does not come from the interviewee. For that purpose it is WP:RS per WP:IV. Anyway there are others cited and hundreds of other sources, you can find others and improve the article if you want.--Jersey92 (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Move to draft space, and allow six months for the article to be improved with better sources; if it can not be so improved in this time, delete. bd2412 T 00:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^(c) 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• KEEP There are enough sources that discuss SecureMySocial in enough detail independent of Joseph Steinberg to give SecureMySocial a separate article in Wikipedia. The article by Israeli journalist Gabriel Avner even has the title SecureMySocial stops users from posting stupid statuses. It is obvious from reading some of the others that they discuss SecureMySocial, not just Joseph Steinberg. Thetechgirl (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Except it is not an "intellectually independent" source. In fact, it is a run-of-the-mill advertorial and it is obvious that it relies entirely on the company and their staff for the content, complete with the obligatory "interview" with the founders.

• Delete Corporate spam, fails WP:CORP. Not a single one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If we ignore the founder's quotes there is still enough information in the articles and putting them together gives sufficient notability. Articles by journalists in publications are not advertorials. Also, the founder is quoted as an expert in hundreds of other articles having nothing to do with his company, so these appear to be stories about an expert creating something new, not advertorials. Thetechgirl (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)