Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comsec Consulting

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. Deleting per HighKing's rationale. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comsec Consulting

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable consulting firm. There’s no reliable sourcing available on this firm; every source is a press release or other information directly from their website or a brief blurb on an internal industry newsletter, which is not something that can be used to establish notability and is probably not reliable. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 13:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find things out there in reliable sources showing they are notable, certainly enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:42. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. --Jayron 32 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those sources as well, but my thinking was that they fell under the definition of “trivial coverage” as defined by WP:NCORP.

for example, the third source you listed is about cybersecurity at the World Cup. A Comsec employee is quoted only once, as a source about the amount of phishing related spam emails sent during the Germany World Cup. That is not “significant coverage” since the article contains no information about Comsec and is just citing it for information about an unrelated topic.

The other sources (such as the first and second) fall under NCORP’s standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as [...] of expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sales or of changes in share or bond prices (such as the Haaretz link you provided). As the guideline states, this type of coverage is not enough to establish notability. Michepman (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Haaretz article is not just a change in share price. Sources are not invalidated simply because they mention share prices, sources should be assessed on the totality of their coverage, and the Haaretz source also discusses the organization of the company and some of its background. It's not a lot, but it is not merely a change in share price report. It's that and more information, which the and more information which is useful for notability purposes. Those sources are also not comprehensive. This dutch documentary appears to discuss the company in some detail. This computer weekly article discusses the company as well. This Times of India article, and This Ghanese news source, This other Haaretz article, etc. --Jayron 32 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have received no significant coverage other than self-published sources (press releases and website) and only incidental references outside of that. I agree that WP:NCORP controls. Alicb (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have coverage in a number of reputable sources. Keep. Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jayron's sourcing establishes sufficient notability to pass NCORP. ——SN 54129 19:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jayron has produced sufficient sources to establish notability. The Times of India piece in particular is convincing. Now some of that should make it into the article - current sourcing is indeed an abomination unto the Lord. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing found above. Meets WP:GNG. Jayron32 has located many. By a preponderance of evidence we can see notability. Wm335td (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on balance. The Times of Israel piece and the Dutch documentary are probably enough to get it over the hump. --valereee (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Times of Israel, Haaretz, Ghanese, and Dutch documentary as sources. I'm completely ignorant of cybersecurity issues, so anyone who does know them please check my work. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are low quality, rewritten press releases or mentions in passing. There is not much we can do with that. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hug^syrup 17:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The test is not merely for "reliable sources" or "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of *significant* coverage with *in-depth* information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing *Independent Content* which is defined as follows: "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The "independent" "reliable" sources produced above by Jayron32 fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability as follows:
- Times of Israel reference is based entirely on press conference/interview/quotations from the CEO and CRO and does not contain Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- Globes reference is based on a Press Release from Convertix, has no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- EMERCE reference is entirely based on a company posting which is clearly stated at the top of the page, fails WP:ORGIND
- Security Intelligence reference is a mention-in-passing to a Comsec blog post on "Keep one eye on the ball and the other on the NET!", fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND
- SC Media source in based entirely on an interview with the CEO, contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- Haaretz source is based on a normal quarterly announcement by the CEO/Chairman. It is stated above that "the Haaretz source also discusses the organization of the company and some of its background" but none of that comes from an source not connected with the company nor is the content clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- Cybernation reference is based on a company announcement from Eldav on its acquisition of Comsec, fails WP:ORGIND
I am unable to find any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 13:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jayron on basis of gng. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6CE7:D625:5B30:1B91 (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of multiple reliable sources as cited above by HighKing --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per HighKing's in-depth analysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2020 (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.